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 : Should God be replaced? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LLCF who wrote (24918)	11/18/2006 9:21:38 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28931

"And my opionion that Bush reacted reather than responded (to stay with the verbage we've used so far) is exactly what I intended to say" And I continue to think your view of the matter is naive. The President of the United States receives input from many advisors and must sort through information in an intelligent manner to make the best possible response. Even when the response could have been better, it does not justify calling it a mere reaction such as a moth going to a flame or the cringing of a worm from salt. The idea of "react" involves acting without the intermediary of informed thought. It suggests instinct and thoughtlessness rather than ratiocination. Either you do not understand the difference between responding and reacting or you are unwilling to acknowledge it, and prefer to let an obvious insult to the President stand. "FWIW, any psychologist will tell you that there is plenty of our action/thought/etc that is reaction and not "aware response"." Smarten up. The decision to go into Iraq was developed over months and in deep consideration of myriad issues. Calling it a "reaction" is frankly more dumber than dumb.