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 : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Suma who wrote (57769)	4/15/2007 2:34:44 PM
From: ManyMoose	Respond to of 90947

Hatred begets hatred. For the first two thirds of my life I allowed that any two (or more) points of view could be valid at the same time. I got over this false tolerance because as I matured I saw that if I didn't stand up for my views nobody else was going to. Perhaps it is true that your truths are true for you and false for others. You could say the same thing about mine, I'm sure. That would make both of us right. In some matters, such as allowing that terrorists have a valid point of view, tolerance is simply delusional. You can't change them, so the only thing left is to eliminate them. If I see Osama bin Laden I'm going to shoot him between the eyes, which I've done already in effigy. Call it hatred if you want. I call it simple survival. I frequent threads such as this one because the left leaning ones I've explored are vicious and intolerant, and their ban lists prove it. I don't agree with everything that is said by people that I agree with in general, but I find that they are more tolerant of people like yourself than their counterparts in left wing threads are for people like me. I've also seen some of my compatriots here moderate their approach to opposing views, but I have seen NONE of that on the lefty threads. A lot of what you call hatred, SUMA, is simply dismay at self-destructive points of view held by way too many Americans.

To: Suma who wrote (57769)	4/16/2007 10:20:39 AM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

Suma, can you explain this inconsistency? You have clearly expressed disdain for folks who take posts from one thread to another for purposes of denigrating them (all relevant supporting links below). How then do you explain why you have dragged one of my posts to the 'View' thread for just that purpose? And that's not the first time you've done it either. Isn't that hypocritical? Message 23456677 Message 23456744 Message 23457119 Message 23457671 Message 23457297 Message 23457671 Message 23262589 Message 23262608

To: Suma who wrote (57769)	4/16/2007 10:22:06 AM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 90947

One more thing about that post you dragged over to the 'View' Suma. I found it quite enlightening that the response you received to that post from Dale Baker & JohnM. They didn't provide one factual piece of evidence to refute the article. ZIP! NADA! ZERO! Instead they simply attacked the author, what they felt he stood for & his audience (us). They called the author "biased", "self-serving", "partisan" "right wing" & his article "a recognizable hit job", ET AL. And those who read these types of articles were called, "The Circle of True Believers", "Great for the playground", etc, etc. And based on that you said, << "...quite frankly you have said it all ... You are so right about the author as he has never been wrong, nor have his facts...(sic)" >> Precisely what "facts" from Dale & JohnM caused you to draw that enlightened conclusion? Message 23456677 Message 23456744 Message 23457119 Message 23457671 Message 23457297 Message 23457671 Message 23262589 Message 23262608