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: Dale Baker who wrote (30047)	10/14/2006 12:32:37 AM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541453

That's such a good read- and if it were written by someone from the right, who was upset about "jokes" from the left, it would be just as good. Just like making Polish folks the butt of jokes, or Italians, or blacks, such "jokes" have a huge element of intended cruelty- and pointing it out is not, imo, PC (as folks who love these jokes like to cry)- pointing out that such jokes are hurtful and shouldn't be aimed at others is what we used to call manners. If you go out intentionally to trash someone for no other reason than that you hate them because of their group affiliation, that's rude. It's many other things as well, but I think all of us can agree it's very rude. Most of us were lucky enough to have parents who probably told us not to insult people, not to call names, not to bully people, not to be intentionally cruel- why adults sometimes forget this, who can say? I'm sure the need to bond with a group plays in to it, and insecurity, and emotional problems- but none of those things are an acceptable reason for rudeness- they may be an explanation, but an explanation is not an excuse. I'm tired of seeing people on the right belittle people on the left and vice versa. I think it's fine to target the ideas of someone else, but some people really really need to work on separating the person from the idea. A person who has a different political orientation may still be a good father, a good mother, a nice neighbor, a fine employee, a good person- and it would be good if people could keep that in mind. It's clear that some people can't, right now, but I think we can all hope that in the fullness of time more and more people can. We all have our humanity in common. However we may disagree, we have many many things in common. I find it depressing that some people forget that, and choose to take the very lowest roads. It's too bad. On the other hand, most people are pretty nice, and most people don't tell cruel jokes, and most people aren't bullies and bigots, so that's the good news.

To: Dale Baker who wrote (30047)	10/17/2006 3:52:08 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 541453

My response to that post One email contains the alleged first-hand account of an interview on National Public Radio between a female host and U.S. Army General Reinwald. The General is describing a Boy Scout Troop the base is sponsoring, and mentions that the boys will be learning how to shoot a rifle. The interviewer questions whether the kids are being equipped to "...become violent killers." The General responds, "Well, you're equipped to be a prostitute, but you're not one, are you?" If it never actually happened than it shouldn't be portrayed as if it did, but it makes a decent joke, and it makes a valid point. Message 22906981 If it was portrayed as actually happening than presumably either someone lied, or a misunderstanding arose and then was spread without fact checking. But it it was presented as a joke, or as a way of making a point, without falsely asserting it really happened than I have no problem with it, and I also don't really see it as a partisan slap. The story about how people responded to a "dangerous man with a knife", even though it wasn't presented as an actual true story, was more of a partisan slap, esp. because it was labeled "The difference between liberal and conservative". As for the third story - Another email claims that the government has been paying the Clinton's mortgage on their New York home. Allegedly, a housing unit was built at the Clintons' house for Secret Service agents to use. The Clintons, we are told, are charging them rent and the rate they are charging is the same amount as their mortgage payment (about $10,000). In short, we taxpayers are paying for the Secret Service addition, AND the Clintons' mortgage! Is your blood boiling yet? Well cool down. Ex-presidents are reimbursed for any area of their house used by the Secret Service. The Clintons were eligible to receive more than $1,000 a month, but they did not accept the reimbursement. Yes ex-presidents are reimbursed for any area of their house used by the secret service, but its possible that the writer of the story objects to that (but if he does, his story ignores the fact that this also applies to Republican former presidents, Bush Sr and Ford are both eligible for such compensation, and it wouldn't surprise me if they receive it). Also if his facts are correct (and I'm not asserting they are, I really don't know) and the Clintons are charging enough to pay for the whole house than the writer may have a legitimate complaint, that the Clintons are overcharging.