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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: haqihana who wrote (14740)	3/10/2000 2:21:00 AM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

I was first attracted to the conservative cause because they were against an all-encompassing federal government, that tried to foist that "cradle to the grave security" garbage onto society at the expense of individual initiative, and states rights. I can agree with most of that, and I shared that attraction. I have long had problems, though, with conservative foreign polices that seemed to me naive, short-sighted, and simplistic, as well as occasionally just plain wrong. I have lived most of my adult life outside the US and foreign policy is a good deal more important to me than it is to most Americans. I don't want to discuss it in any great detail, mostly because I've learned (the hard way) that the basic difference in perspective is very difficult to bridge, and the only result of trying is a lot of wasted typing on everybody's part. I generally don't see "liberal" and "conservative" positions. I see a continuum, clearly radical on one end, passing through the liberal, moderate and centrist positions, then to the conservative and the reactionary. People land somewhere on the continuum, not necessarily in the liberal or conservative camps. To make it even more complicated, people may land in different places on that continuum on different issues. I distrust extremists on both side. I distrust anyone who claims a monopoly on truth. I don't think either side has exclusive rights on truth or wisdom; I think there are valid points on both sides that need to be considered. I think intelligent policy is most likely to be achieved through dialogue and compromise between the two sides, not by selecting one side over the other. I think that either side, unchecked, would probably make an unmitigated mess of our lives. I don't like either of these candidates, not only because of their policies but because I see very little substance and very little to respect in either of them. I can't see voting for either of them. the feds are taking the side of degeneracy against morality, which is no more fair than the other way around. I have my own definitions of degeneracy and morality, which may or may not coincide with yours. In either event, I think the Government should stay well and truly out of that debate, unless one individual or group is directly infringing upon the rights of another individual or group. When conflicts of rights occur, as they always do, all we can do is listen, think, and decide as fairly as possible, knowing that at any given point we might be wrong. The thinking part is crucial, and all too often overlooked.