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 (156199)	12/16/2002 1:29:59 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1578573

However, where he is similar is that he acts as the aggressor. Its not even vaguely similar. Bush is responding to a potential danger and to a violation of a cease fire agreement. Hitler planned and executed a war of conquest. You can make an argument that Bush is wrong but it isn't anything like Hitler. First, Bush is using the cease fire agreement as the excuse; he has made it clear that if Iraq complies with the agreement, he may well take Saddam out anyway. How do you know that Bush is not planning and executing a war of conquest? He's made it clear he has a list of countries he thinks are unacceptable and must be changed. And you don't think Hitler had some cockamamie reason for attacking other countries? You're very accepting of a leader who only has a track record of two years. Read what I post please. I said "most people" place hitler on the right. I didn't say that I do. But I never said I really wouldn't either. What I have said is that he was not conservative, and he did not resemble a more extreme version of Bush, or Republicans or American conservatives. The terms "conservative" and "the right", mean a lot of different things. You can call Bush part of "the right" and you can call Hitler part of "the right" but only if you use different definitions of "the right". This is silly.......conservatives are people found on the right side of the political spectrum. The terms are interchangeable. Furthermore, there are some things common to both Bush's and Hitler's political ideologies since both come from the right. For an example, both Bush and Hitler are/were reactionaries to varying degrees. Hitler wanted a Germany free of what he considered undesirable foreign elements. Bush wants to go back to a world where only the US has nuclear weapons. I don't believe either are/were attainable. What separates Bush and Hitler is the fact Hitler was certifiably nuts. You consider Stalin on the left because communism is considered a leftist theory. But in Russia they did not practice the communism of theory, and Stalin was simply an old fashioned dictator with a right wing bent. Communsm as Marz and others though about it was considered on the left. Communsim as it was practiced by the Soviets and the Chinese communists is also considered leftist and there is good reason to think this way. The Soviets nationalized industries and otherwise promoted socialist ideas. Sorry.....it is ridiculous to argue this point with you when you insist that what was practiced in Russia was communism as theorized by Marx. Trent Lott is looking more and more to be a full blow racist.....not thirty years ago but now. That is a big exageration. He made a careless comment, and he might even have some racist ideas (but even that is unceratin) but "a full blown racist"? Please. He inferred recently that he thought S. Thurmond should have won the presidency when he ran on ticket where races were to be "separate but equal". Lott was affiliated with an organization that is racist as late as 1998. There was an uproar about it back then. Thirty years ago Lott was on the Sigma Nu board that insisted that the fraternity remain "white only". Members of his own party have asked him to resign his position as Majority Leader of the Senate. And you think this is minor issue? You conservatives are into some serious denial! > And even if he is that doesn't meen Bush is or Republican's in general are. I can point to racist democrats does that mean that Clinton and Gore are more moderate versions of Hitler? Nonsense. Please point out the racist Dems. TIA. How do I know that Lott is not the norm Becaue all the evidence points the other way. that Bush currently is bent on securing his power with the intent of implementing the 'real' beliefs of the Rep. party once he feels he can. A paranoid fantasy. May well be.....time will tell. And then you tell me Conservatives are not fighting for a little bit of racial hatred? How do I know you are telling the truth? How do I know that you and Bush are talking equality when in reality that's a cover for your true feelings? Are you accusing Republicans of being racist or not. I don't know if they are or not....that's why I was asking the question. If your not then you have no point. If you are be straight forward about it and go ahead and make the accusation. I couldn't be more straight forward. Most of the comparisons are coming from well educated people in the know who are worried. Most of the comparisons are comming from very partisan people, many of whoom have a record of making unsupported attacks like these against Republicans. I suppose that includes allies of the US as well. The whole world is against Bush simply because he is a Republican. Who's paranoid now? It doesn't matter who started the fear. What bothers me is that Bush is to some degree capitalizing on it. What is he doing wrong. Please be specific. Some people have supported him because of fear of terrorists. OK that means they think he is better able to deal with the terrorists. Should Bush say "No don't vote for me."? We are reminded 24/7 that terrorists are gunning for us. Whenever it suits he and his colleagues, he/they suggest that our latest enemy like Saddam is in league with the terrorists even though there is no evidence to support his claim. When people have opposed his moves, he claims they are unpatriotic and suggests that they might as well be in league with the terrorists. He talks of WMD 24/7. He talks of terrorists 24/7. He talks of 9/11 24/7. He talks of fear 24/7. Bush has been claiming all along to have evidence of Saddam's WMD. The evidence of Saddam's WMD program is not secret, there has been tons of evidence and it has been widly available for years. Where is the fukking evidence of Iraq's WMDs he's claimed he had for weeks now? If you want to play it stupid, play on your own time, not mine. ted