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 : Right Wing Extremist Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TH who wrote (3993)	2/3/2001 1:04:19 AM
From: Magnatizer	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 59480

TH And they prolly think Clinton's only flaw was an inability to keep slick willy in his longjohns. Perhaps if they better informed the US would not have had to come over and deal with Hitler and Melosavich. ht Mag

To: TH who wrote (3993)	2/5/2001 1:28:44 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 59480

In Europe, the parties of the Right are generally paternalistic, and therefore semi- socialist. Additionally, even Left- wing intellectuals are very snobbish. Thatcher had a bad time with members of her own party, who resented her attempt to "Americanize" the economy, and Labor intellectuals used to attack her for her sweater vests and lower middle class veneer. In France, both the Left and Right talk about "Anglo- American" economics as something inappropriate to the French situation, rather like Lee Kuan Yew (of Singapore) contrasting the American model of democracy with the Asian model. To educated Europeans, someone like Bush is a yahoo from Texas who is trying to turn the clock back to the Age of the Robber Barons. (See "The Cook, The Thief, His Wife, and her Lover" to get the point of view in the face).........

To: TH who wrote (3993)	2/5/2001 4:02:43 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 59480

We have to allow the Europeans their jealosy. After all, they hardly have anything else.

To: TH who wrote (3993)	2/6/2001 1:58:58 AM
From: Lazarus_Long	Respond to of 59480

Gore won the election because he got "more" votes. I think ALL the European democracies have parliamentary systems. If anyone bothered to check (which they never do), it is probably not unusual for a prime minister to be elected who got fewer popular votes than some other potential winner. There system has the same "flaws" as the electoral college: a member of parliament who wins by one vote is just as legitimate as one who wins with 100% of the vote.

To: TH who wrote (3993)	2/6/2001 10:47:07 AM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 59480

>>Gore won the election because he got "more" votes.<< Last night in the New Yorker (that bastion of liberalism!) I read an amusing variation on this theme - most people are not aware that Dubya got more votes in 2000 than Clinton did in 1992 or 1996, but it's true. In fact, in the 2000 election, Dubya got more votes than any other presidential candidate in history, except for Reagan in 1984 . . . . and Gore in 2000.-g- >>W has men with old ideas on his team.<< Dubya's cabinet is more diverse than any other Republican cabinet in history, 6 out of 14 positions are held by "minorities" - sorry, I can't really call women minorities with a straight face - coming in second only to Clinton's first administration. Clinton's first cabinet was the most diverse, 7 out of 14 "minorities", but over time the white males took over (as usual!).