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 : Right Wing Extremist Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: GROUND ZERO™ who wrote (51137)	10/9/2005 10:17:19 PM
From: sandintoes	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 59480

If the money people are Republicans, why do they put up with all this anti America, Bush bashing by a bunch of ding bats?

To: GROUND ZERO™ who wrote (51137)	10/10/2005 3:45:34 PM
From: paret	Respond to of 59480

Roots of 'redskin' Waterbury Republican-American ^ \| October 9, 2005 \| Editorial Among thin-skinned elites, the worst name one can call an American Indian is "redskin." According to a recent Washington Post report, the term is considered a "gross pejorative" that has been used "for centuries to disparage and humiliate an entire people." Not so, says Smithsonian Institution linguist Ives Goddard. He spent months researching the term's history and determined it was coined by 18th-century Indians to distinguish themselves from white people. When redskin first appeared as an English expression in the 1800s, "it came in the most respectful context and at the highest level," he told the Post. The most notable example was President Madison, who honored a group of visiting chiefs by compassionately referring to Indians as "my red children." Mr. Goddard's findings refute the dubious and stereotypical information circulated by some Indian groups that claim redskin always has been a belittling term. He even determined the most cited evidence to support that position, a late 19th-century letter, was an obvious forgery. "While people seem to be happier with the agonistic interpretation of past events, the real story is much more complicated and much more interesting," he said. University of Connecticut Historian Nancy Shoemaker supports his conclusions. She told the Post that by the end of the 18th century, Indians were using "red" to "assert their pride of being North America's original inhabitants." Actually, the Indians took over the Americas thousands of years ago by killing off a race of people known as the Paleo-Indians and taking their land. The redskin flap is of particular interest to the Post because Indian agitators have demanded for more than a decade that the NFL's Washington Redskins change their nickname. If they bothered to trace the genealogy of the nickname, they would have discovered it is a tribute to a Delaware Indian chief who was revered by colonial settlers and who in 1682 signed a treaty of friendship with William Penn. But the peddlers of political correctness don't care about facts or historical context; they want desperately to be insulted so that they may cover themselves with the cloak of victimhood that enables them to reap the public sympathy and the considerable financial benefits that come with it.

To: GROUND ZERO™ who wrote (51137)	10/11/2005 1:58:10 AM
From: paret	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 59480

How The Left Harmed America This Week (Dennis Prager On America's Cultural Barbarians Alert) Townhall.com ^ \| 10/11/05 \| Dennis Prager Not a week goes by that some part of the Left does not hurt America. But in the past two weeks, three examples stood out for the degree of such harm. The first example involved the ACLU, which has threatened Southwest Airlines with a lawsuit. Southwest ordered a passenger off a flight after she refused to cover her T-shirt on which was printed an expletive -- "Fu--ers" -- referring to President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. The ACLU position is not surprising. That organization had once defended a high school student whose school had prohibited him from wearing to class a T-shirt that read "Big Pecker." I have previously noted in this column the widespread approval of foul language on the Left, such as the expletive-filled entertainment at a John Kerry fundraiser organized by MoveOn.org. Nor is it surprising that a high percentage of my e-mail from people on the Left contains obscenities. To most Americans, the huge increase in public cursing is a sign of a deteriorating civilization; to the Left it is a sign of a freer, less hypocritical one. The second example was a federal judge appointed by former President Bill Clinton ordering the Defense Department to release all remaining photos of prisoner abuse by Americans at Abu Ghraib prison. Though it is certain that the only effect of the photos will be to further endanger Americans at home and abroad and increase the danger to American troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, and though there is absolutely no need for the public to see these photos, the judge ordered their release. Thanks to this decision by one judge, we are in for another orgy of anti-Americanism in the foreign and domestic news media and another propaganda victory for those who murder people trying to vote, place bombs in tourist hotels and slaughter innocent human beings like sheep. To understand the destructive nature of this decision, imagine what would have happened during World War II if photos of similar (or more serious) abuse of alleged Nazis were available. Would any judge in America have ordered that they be published? Would such a lawsuit have ever been brought? Many on the Left regard the term "national security" as essentially a right-wing cover for conservatism, which they equate with a form of fascism. That explains the Left's contempt for the Patriot Act, and it helps explain the decision of U.S. District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein. That Americans will be killed as a result of a judge's decision to release photos is of no consequence to the Left. Indeed, for the ACLU, release of the photos is a victory precisely because it does weaken American ability to fight Islamic terrorists. A third example is the Left's libel of Bill Bennett. I covered this issue in detail in my last column. Suffice it to say here that a prominent liberal writer, Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen, sees the larger issue raised by the nearly universal left-wing smear of Bennett as a racist who advocates the abortion of all black babies. In a courageous column, Cohen wrote that "The GOP was the party of Joe McCarthy. . . . Now, though, it is the Democrats who . . . stifle debate and smother thought." From the pointless judicial weakening of American security, to the fight to force airlines to allow passengers to display obscenities, to the ongoing libel of Bill Bennett -- a libel as far from truth as is the infamous "blood libel" that claims that Jews slaughter Gentile children to use their blood for baking matzo -- this was just another week of harm to a great civilization by barbarians inside the gates.

To: GROUND ZERO™ who wrote (51137)	10/11/2005 2:02:03 AM
From: paret	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 59480

Young men lead audience flight from struggling US cinemas: survey Oct 10 2005 Teenage boys and young men lead disillusioned US movie-goers in staying away from cinemas as ticket prices rise and the quality of home entertainment soars, a new survey showed. As Hollywood wages an epic battle against falling ticket sales, the poll revealed that one of the industry's most crucial audience groups, males aged between 13 and 24, are opting to stay home to watch DVD and play video games. Boys and young men in the key demographic group reported watching a whopping 24 percent fewer films in the all-important summer cinema season in 2005 than they did over the same period in 2003, consumer research firm Online Testing eXchange (OTX) said. "The perception among young male moviegoers that there wasn't much to see his year was a difficult barrier to overcome, regardless of price," said Vincent Bruzzese of OTX. "This demographic, more acutely than any other, is weighing the value of the in-theatre movie experience compared to many other lower cost, more immediate and convenient entertainment options. And increasingly, young males are deciding to grab a DVD or video game to watch or play at home," he said. The survey of 2,000 movie-goers who said they had seen at least six movies in the past 12 months revealed that males aged between 13-24 watched 56 percent more videos or digital video disc (DVD) movies this year than they did two years ago. In 2003, the same demographic group reported watching an average of 30 videos or DVDs a year, while the figure had jumped to 47 for this year. Young men also complained there was a lack of appealing content on cinema screens, with just 35 percent saying they were satisfied with the choice compared to 60 percent two years ago. In addition, a growing number of the young men polled -- 53 percent -- said they played video games on platforms including Playstation, Xbox and Gamecube, while 62 percent surfed the Internet regularly. Overall, some 35 percent of American moviegoers reported seeing fewer films in 2003 compared to 2004, compared to only 27 percent who reported seeing more, as movie ticket prices rise and the lag time between theatrical release and DVD release becomes shorter, the survey showed. Hollywood studios are fighting a bitter battle against falling box office returns in North America as ticket receipts dropped by around 10 percent in 2005 compared to the first nine months of 2004, box office figures show. "Consumers are saying that when they get to the theatre what they see there is as good as it's ever been," said Shelley Zalis, co-Founder of OTX. "But the rising cost of tickets, gas and babysitters, combined with the improving nature of the in-home media experience are major factors keeping consumers from leaving the living room," she added.