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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JohnM who wrote (17974)	5/8/2006 10:20:11 AM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 543300

As I said, tough language is appropriate, and both sides engage in it. The examples are too numerous to even begin to list. This is not academia, where calm discussions are allegedly the norm. You've got your contexts mixed up. There is considerable rabble-rousing, hype, etc., in the world of politics, and it is up to the reader to choose. The internet has to some extent made this kind of catfight more accessible, but to suggest that it didn't exist before the evil right wing started using these horrible tactics is a bit of a stretch. I submit it is healthy, normal, the historical norm, and otherwise appropriate. And there is no loss of "substance" in the process. I think you're simply expressing a preference for calm discussion while suggesting that only the evil right wing engages in the kind of discussion you don't care for, which is a bit disingenuous [actually, not a "bit disingenuous" but hugely disingenuous]. You desire for calm will never be fulfilled outside of an academic or think tank context because political discussions are by nature heated free-for- alls. Especially if widely-read and biased pundits are the warriors. And, no, you don't have to suggest that I don't get your point, or that I distort it, or whatever right wing pundit mirror behavior you want to improperly assign to me. Your point is too simple for anyone not to grasp.

To: JohnM who wrote (17974)	5/8/2006 11:10:26 AM
From: Mary Cluney	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 543300

But these right wing pundits have decided they will not do that. Just personally attack folk who have different views. And, as a result, serious debate about serious issues is badly damaged. Round up the usual suspects: Charles Krautheimer, Bill O'Reilly, Laura Ingram, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, the Beltway Boys, on and on... This is what Paul Krugman had to say in this morning's NY Times: Unlike the crazy conspiracy theories of the left — which do exist, but are supported only by a tiny fringe — the crazy conspiracy theories of the right are supported by important people: powerful politicians, television personalities with large audiences. And we can safely predict that these people will never concede that they were wrong. When the Iraq venture comes to a bad end, they won't blame those who led us into the quagmire; they'll claim that it was all the fault of the liberal media, which stabbed our troops in the back.

To: JohnM who wrote (17974)	5/8/2006 12:49:52 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 543300

Hitchens vs. Cole isn't "right vs. left." Hitchens is left, himself. He's anti-authoritarian, which is why he is against the Islamic regime in Iran, and was against the Saddam regime in Iraq. These regimes torture and kill political opponents, including socialists, homosexuals, and uppity women. That's why Hitchens opposes them. To the extent that Cole apologizes for the Iranian stance against Israel, Hitchens opposes that. Cole calls him a drunk, he says Cole's illiterate.