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: Solon who wrote (24920)	11/19/2006 12:30:58 AM
From: LLCF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 28931

<And I continue to think your view of the matter is naive. > That's fine... all sorts of people have views similar to ours. <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.> Some of which differed with the President as well, as you've probably seen on TV. <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.> didn't say anything about worms. <The idea of "react" involves acting without the intermediary of informed thought.> Yes, as I said... although of course there is not simply complete reaction with no illumination or completely enlightened response. There is a whole rainbow in between. It's simply my opinion that when it comes to many of the perceived issues at hand I happen to think there was an unfortunately high % of emotional "reaction" vs enlightened response. < 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.> The first part is clearly wrong, reread what I wrote and get a dictionary... I clearly understand the difference between the two. As to "insult", I'm doing no such thing... I'm writting a note to you on a chat board expressing my opinion on these matters. Noticing a persons emotional reaction and then reporting to an aquaintance, neither of whom no or come in contact with the first is not an insult to the first. You might say I'm assassinating his character TO YOU I suppose, or some such thing... but that's not the intention. <<"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.> I think you should study a little more psychology before you comment on it, especially in such a snide way. People repeat reactionary unaware behaviours over and over again every second of every day all over the planet despite having considered (yes deeply), pondered, cried about, seen experts about, yada yada yada... besides, how do you know what type of consideration was going on? You know Bush's thought process now? I'm just giving my opinion, you seem to assume to know what's going on in his head. There are endless scenario's where one may actually make LESS rational decisions by analysing something longer. Who cares how long it takes. You don't get rid of emotional baggage by intellectually massaging it for months for instance, or bring in all sorts of experts till you hear what you want... All sorts of people do the same thing in all walks of life... so? Plus, don't take it so seriously, it's JMO from my observations, yours are different. Great! DAK