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: TimF who wrote (141821)	1/17/2002 4:31:22 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1584925

... by what they read, not to mention whether ... The Wall Street Journal is read by the people who run the country. The New York Times is read by people who think they run the country. The Washington Post is read by people who think they should run the country. USA Today is read by people who think they ought to run the country but don't really understand the Washington Post. They do, however, like their smog statistics shown in pie charts. The Los Angeles Times is read by people who wouldn't mind running the country, if they could spare the time, and if they didn't have to leave L.A. to do it. The Boston Globe is read by people whose parents used to run the country and they did a far superior job of it, thank you very much. The New York Daily News is read by people who aren't too sure who's running the country, and don't really care as long as they can get a seat on the train. The New York Post is read by people who don't care who's running the country either, as long as they do something really scandalous, preferably while intoxicated. The San Francisco Chronicle is read by people who aren't sure there is a country, or that anyone is running it; but whoever it is, they oppose all that they stand for. There are occasional exceptions if the leaders are handicapped minority feminist atheist dwarfs, who also happen to be illegal aliens from ANY country or galaxy, as long as they are Democrats. The Miami Herald is read by people who are running another country. Message 16924766

To: TimF who wrote (141821)	1/17/2002 9:57:42 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1584925

Hitler was not a conservative, but Stalin was in many ways the opposite of conservative. Tim, when Hitler first got elected to office, he ran on a conservative ticket in a very conservative Bavaria. I don't remember if he was with a party. I can assure you, the Bavarians did not have a lapse and vote a liberal into office when they elected Hitler. The political theory he pushed (when he bothered to push anything besides his own power) is socialism/communism imposed by force. It's a more extreme version of socialism. He was only conservative in one way once he was in power he didn't want the power structure to change much but anyone in power is likely to want to remain there. And actually beyond the party being in control and himself in control of the party, he did make changes in the power structure purging huge sections of it. Any similarities between Stalin's gov't and socialism and communism, was either accidental or intended for image reasons. Stalin was a ruthless, conservative dictator who put to death hundreds of thousands of people. He was intensely paranoid and ruled Russia with an iron fist. Much like Hitler, he built huge monuments/ buildings dedicated to Russian culture and power. In fact the two of them were very much alike......Stalin also didn't care for Russia's ethnic peoples........and for one brief point during the late 30's and early 40's, Germany and Russia were allied. If you are going to call Stalin a conservative then we had best come up with a new term because we would really be using different languages if we both use that word.With Hitler at least you had the exuse that he is traditionally seen as right wing which is considered to be "extreme conservative". I would say that idea is wrong but it atleast was the standard conventional idea so its not a shock to hear it. With Stalin you seem to be making an entirely new classification system for your argument. Is a conservative anyone who supports strong central authority with no democratic or procedural checks and balances? I am not making a whole new classification.......the kind of dictators that Franco [btw Franco and Hitler were close as well], Hitler and Stalin were sprang from the same well. There MO might be different but their motivations were similar. If so I am not a conservative and Reagan, Gringrich, Rush Limbaugh, Bill Buckley, George Bush (both of them), and Dick Cheney are not conservatives. What does the politics and philosophy of these people have in common with Stalin? Nothing.Tim That's fine.