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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (141791)	1/17/2002 12:02:37 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1584916

Tim, that's not true. There are radicals/extremists in every group. Hitler is not a more radical member of any group I belong to other then groups like "the human race", "white males", "people who lived in the 20th century", or other non-political groups. Yes you could find one or two political things that we might agree on (we both don't like communists for example) but there is no shared coherent political or philosophical world view. There are radical liberals who would require corporations to give money to the poor or that all profits should go to the employees. Having all wealth given to the poor or allocated and or controlled by the government is a more radical version of the idea that a big chunk of these profits should be controlled by the government. What did Hitler have more radical versions of? Well he had a more radical anti-Semitism (kill Jews in huge numbers rather then just discriminate against them), but anti-Semitism is not conservatism. He was big on central control vested in one person. Conservatives in the US are bigger supporters of states rights then liberals. You said Hitler was aggressive militarily and that's not typical of conservatives. Then I ask you, how many army generals are liberals? I said Hitler tried to conquer Europe and aggressively attacked major powers putting his country at risk. How many US army generals, or conservatives want to do something like that? How many liberals are campaigning for the NRA? Gun control is another example of an idea that Hitler shared with liberals. He was a big supporter of gun control, and anything else that might help him have centralize all power to himself. Not that Hitler's support of gun control makes Hitler a liberal, but your argument about the NRA is ridiculous considering the fact that Hitler supported gun control. You say that Hitler had more gov't than would meet the approval of conservatives. Maybe. But then Germany needed all that gov't to achieve what conservatives desire, strong control over its citizens...... Strong control over citizens is not part of conservative thought except perhaps when it comes to controlling crime. On many issues in modern America liberals are the ones campaigning for stronger control over individual citizens, and for the idea that that control should be more centralized rather then exercised at the state or local levels. To sum up, you say Hitler is a conservative because of his military policies, which consisted of aggressively attacking other countries including major powers putting his own countries at risk, something that is not conservative by any commonly used definition. You say that he is conservative because of his view on gun control, when he supports the same position of most American liberals on this issue, and you say he is conservative because he wanted more control over German citizens, when it is the liberals who are more frequently pushing for more regulation and centralized government control. Despite this similarities I think it would be unfair and inaccurate to call Hitler a liberal, but it is similarly unfair and inaccurate to call him a conservative. Using either word to describe Hitler expands that word to such an extent that it loses meaning and becomes to imprecise to be useful. Tim

To: tejek who wrote (141791)	1/17/2002 12:22:12 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1584916

Then I ask you, how many army generals are liberals? As Colin Powell (himself no extreme conservative) has clearly enunciated, almost all generals are averse to war, having been there & seen it magnified in its infinite detail. Liberal? Conservative? That need not be the issue. The fact that liberal leadership (executives, different from generals) has not been successful in conducting wars does not speak to the notion of whether conservatives are "aggressive militarily". These are in no way related concepts. Conservatives, unlike liberals, tend to be driven by fundamental, core beliefs and have the stomach to act contrary to poll results where it is called for. Why? Because the concept of "righteousness" is absolute in a conservative whereas liberals allow the concept to be driven by the needs of the moment. The weakness of liberal executives apparently results in a series of second guesses. This, unfortunately, resulted in the incremental buildup of Vietnam -- LBJ didn't want to be there and as a result was unable to commit the proper level of force to end the war. The result, as we all know, was 50,000 dead American kids. Similarly, Carter, when our hostages were taken, was petrified, unable to act. Any conservative president would have creamed Iran for its actions. Carter couldn't move -- fearful of getting us involved in a protracted engagement. Of course, Carter's gutting of our intelligence community further crippled our miliary. Clinton is the best example of weak leadership. In particular, his failure to hammer Saddam when our weapons inspectors were ejected was one of the most incompetent moves on the part of an administration in our history. Inexcusable. We should have slammed Saddam instantly when this happened. Now, Bush II has inherited an untennable situation with respect to Saddam, that ultimately, will require military action.