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: rich4eagle who wrote (133383)	3/25/2001 12:11:22 AM
From: Kevin Rose	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769667

I think you've got something, but hit it a little strong. The Left tends to be populated by the 'have nots', and the Right by the 'haves'. The Right, naturally, thinks things should be left alone, or back to the way they were 'in the good old days'. Preservation of wealth and security. The Left tends to want to change things; namely, shift some of the wealth from the Right to the Left. The Right views this as 'handouts'; the Left, as a 'safety net'. Of course, this is a huge generalization; I know many Republicans who are dirt poor but buy into the Republican 'dream' (call them 'have wanna bes'). I know some wealthy Democrats (call them 'blue collar wanna bes'). Many inherit their party affiliation from their parents. Some rebel, and take the opposite party to piss off their parents. I don't think of the typical Republican as 'close minded', but more as, well, Conservative. As you said, resistant to change. But the biggest way to get anyone to resist change is to slap a label on them, and call them names. Let's all try to keep the discussion above that level; I'm as guilty as the next person when in a heated argument, but I'll try too...

To: rich4eagle who wrote (133383)	3/25/2001 12:40:48 AM
From: Catfish	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769667

Here is another excerpt. If you read this perhaps you will start to realize that your political philosophy matches that of the socialists: As Alain Besancon points out in Commentary, the current vocabulary for our political spectrum is of Soviet origin. It placed socialists and communists on the left, "capitalists, imperialists" on the right. Once nazis entered the picture, they became the far right, and room was created for "moderates" in the middle. Each of these propositions is a deception. Placing communist socialists and national socialists at opposite ends feigned a quality difference between their agendas, and the people who joined them. It also hinted that everyone on the "right" was in some proximity to the hated nazis. Recently, "extremist" has been added to move those on the "right," rhetorically, ever closer to nazis. Accompanying this has been the refusal by persons who espouse classic socialist tools to be called socialist. What else should we call people who advocate redistribution, class warfare, classification by ancestry, political correctness, revisionist history, school-to-work, speech codes? Or do they not realize they are socialists? If so, millions of Americans might reconsider their stance once they realize its origins. Millions more might rediscover America's founding principles once they accept that nazism was just another form of socialism. So let us restore clarity. There are the principles of the American Founding: the rule of law, individual rights, guaranteed property, and a common American identity. They bring, maintain, and defend freedom. Then there is the road to socialism: "social justice," group rights, redistribution through entitlements, and multiculturalism. They crush the human spirit, and enslave the participants. One is home-grown, secured by the sacrifice of countless generations, and uniquely successful. The other is of foreign origin, propagated around the world by political operatives, and has produced the greatest tragedies of recorded history. It should not be difficult to choose. But there is no middle.