Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices Message Board

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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: tejek who wrote (196876)	8/24/2004 6:20:41 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) of 1574685

And I will continue to question this issue.......its in my best interest to do so and its not done without justification. Questioning this administration is not without justification. Painting them as being anything like the nazis is without justification. It happened under Bush either because no one cared and weren't watching, or because they wanted it to happen. A lot of the people who made the decisions responsible for Abu-Ghraib got those positions during the Clinton administration. But he isn't to blame either. The actions where crimes. The people who did them or ordered them done committed crimes and so they are criminals. Such crimes are a very bad thing but they are not unusual and Bush isn't responsible for them any more then any president is responsible for abuses in the federal prison system or every governor is response for crimes committed by prison guards in state prisons. And his justification for invading was because those countries posed a threat to the German people. Sound familiar? Actually his main justification was that the countries had a lot of Germany people who should join together in a greater Germany. His 2nd justification was that Germans needed "lebensraum". The threat from other countries was only a third justification. Also you are ignoring the purpose of, and results of the invasions. Hitler conquered because he wanted to take over other countries and have them ruled by Germany. Once he had secured the other countries he set up death camps in them and killed millions of their people. Whether they are Nazis or not is immaterial to me. 1 - An odd statement. Nazis and their ilk deserve their own category away from the normal political issues and categories. The distinction between any major player in US domestic politics and the Nazis, Stalinists ect. is very clear and important. 2 - If it was so immaterial why did you pain Bush an his administration as being like the Nazis? 3 - Again every administration in American history has pursued policies that favored particular groups over other particular groups. If this in any way connects Bush to the Nazis then every administration in our history would have to be considered somehow nazi like. They were questionable. No they weren't Running to the SC over a state's issue Running to the SC over a questionable even outright incorrect legal interpretation. Also federal elections are not entirely a state issue, and Gore started the idea of getting the courts involved. refusing to recount ballots when the race in FLA was extraordinarily close. There was no refusal. The votes where counted more then once. Given all the discrepancies and alleged corruption in the ballot count in FLA You exaggerated them and paint them all in Bush's favor when there is as much evidence that the discrepancies went in Gore's favor. The election was arguably within the margin of error of the system to determine. But there is no solid evidence of any systematic corruption or discrepancies or distortions. He didn't just talk about America's greatness......he appealed to American nationalism. Some examples: the UN is coopting America's sovereignty; Germany and France are not our allies; we are great and must go it alone.......bla bla bla bla. That example doesn't make any sense. Not giving Germany and France a veto over our foreign policy is hardly an ultra-nationalist act. Yes, alleged contingency plans.......it was floated to see what the general reaction would be. I disagree. Not once I have I ever heard such a thing being proposed in this country until the Bushies. 1 - There was no 9/11 with previous administrations. 2 - In response to the possibility of a nuclear war, contingency plans for military law, and possibly extra constitutional government where drawn up before. They go far beyond anything Bush has proposed or talked about. There are contingency plans for just about anything you can imagine. For some things they might be 40 years old and piled under a ton of paper in some forgotten corner of an obscure warehouse, but they where drawn up by someone. I can't help that your bias colors your vision. Your bias is so strong that you see undoubted bias in everyone with a different perspective. Tim

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next