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: greenspirit who wrote (155288)	6/23/2001 3:34:53 PM
From: CYBERKEN	Respond to of 769667

I would only modify your comment on the party to mean the liberal movement instead. I remember in 1970, when the Democratic party abandoned the traditional patriotic liberal movement (Truman, JFK, Humphrey, etc.) for the traitorous, pro-communist "peace movement", which encompassed Soviet-style socialism and a general principle of hatred of America (originally manifested in the Nixon hatred). They survive today on that same coalition: trial lawyers, environmental radicals, anti-capitalists, older-generation black racists, and the anti-technology movement. (They are gradually losing the unions, whose members are becoming more intellectually sophisticated than their leaders). But it behooves us to remember that the Democratic party has survived since 1800, and 1970 was certainly not the first time they rebuilt themselves. The Republicans continue to have a difficult time incorporating the libertarian principles into their platforms. They cling to the failed "drug war", and many of their leaders give only lip service to radical tax reform that would eliminate levies on capital formation and employment, moving the system to a passive, consumption-based taxation. It is very possible, as liberalism slips away, that the Democrats will arrive at many of these more radical and libertarian positions first. If that turns out to be the case, many of us conservatives may find their future ideas and candidates worthwhile. We shall see, over the next 25 years...

To: greenspirit who wrote (155288)	6/23/2001 3:52:13 PM
From: CYBERKEN	Respond to of 769667

It would be advantageous for Bush to stand and lose on Social Security privatization. It is far more important to have that to allow Congressional candidates to run on in 2002 than to come up with some ineffective compromise. Social Security privatization is not an issue that needs to be defused, it needs to be lit up like a big bonfire. Besides, there is a good possibility that Democratic Senators who have to face re-election in 2002 would knuckle under and come around on it, even though it would almost guarantee a second Bush term. You will never beat Social Security privatization by wailing on, Scumbria-like, about "the national debt"...