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: Rollcast... who wrote (180655)	9/13/2001 9:11:03 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

re: "You scum just cant let it go." Have you gone off your meds Rollcast? Nothing I admire more than a well reasoned, logical argument, but I didn't see any such in your "scum" comments.... Firstly, I don't recall mentioning Clinton ANYWHERE in my post. Possibly because I was discussing US history vis-a-vie how we impacted that of of Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc. Frankly, Clinton didn't do anything significant politically in much of South Asia, or at least anything with a serious negative effect, which is why I didn't mention him in my two posts. True, some the bases that Bin Laden is using now are the same bases that were built with CIA funding during the Reagan administration, but no one can have THAT perfect a foresight... which is why I didn't bring it up in the first place. What I originally DID bring up was that Bush the Second sent $43 million dollars to the Taliban in May 2001, and now we will be attacking them shortly... perhaps by October 2001 or even earlier. The point I was trying to make is that our foreign policies are often disjointed and counter-productive... and that hurts our country. Having a little cohesiveness and perspective (to say nothing of foresight) would help us a lot to achieve our democratic goals. Anyone who funds Theocracies like the Taliban is, in my opinion, a fool. Anyone who believes that they can be turned into 'reliable partners' for a democracy like ours is dangerously naive. ... And, I'm not exactly sure what American lives were saved (as you say) when the US (Reagan/Bush) administration shipped arms to Khomeni's Iranian government and encouraged them to kill Iraqis, or when a few years later Bush the First gave aid and support to the Iraqis and encouraged them to kill Iranians.... Or when he mounted a massive alliance to take Saddam on, and then stopped short of final success when the Saudis got qualms and rattled the moneybags. Or when he directly and very publicly precipitated the series of events that set the Kurds up for slaughter. You either believe in your policy and see it through, or you don't. And, about that "scum" remark again... I'm not really sure who or what you are thinking of, but I happen to be a conservative... a "limited government", "low tax", "high privacy and individual rights", "pro free market", "pro competition" conservative. That's what used to be called a "True Conservative", not one of these trash-talking, blinder-wearing, Talk-Radio-is-my-only-source-of-information, New-Fangled "Conservatives" who run away from the Bill of Rights and support economically tragic policies such as Nixon's wage/price freeze or Reagan's deficit binge. Now-a-days, people like me often get called "Libertarian", but when I was growing up it was called "True Conservative". I couldn't care less what "party label" anyone sports... in truth, both parties are often filled with balderdash and broken promises. So: Think for yourself! Calling me "scum" only gets it if you truly understand what I am saying, and truly disagree (having some facts to back it up wouldn't hurt either:) These knee-jerk "scum" remarks are hardly persuasive.