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 (156234)	12/16/2002 1:33:13 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1578655

Ted, <How do you know that Bush is not planning and executing a war of conquest?> You will be vindicated once Bush makes Iraq the 51st state in the Union. Until then, I'll just dismiss this as yet another liberal conspiracy theory. Tenchusatsu

To: tejek who wrote (156234)	12/16/2002 6:43:18 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1578655

Dammit I just made a big reply to your message and then lost it. I'll try to recreate it but I don't have the time to go in to as much detail. First, Bush is using the cease fire agreement as the excuse Its a valid reason not just an excuse. How do you know that Bush is not planning and executing a war of conquest? How do you know that your relatives are not all planning to kill you at your next family reunion. You can't know but there is no reasonable reason to think they are. And you don't think Hitler had some cockamamie reason for attacking other countries? Bush has valid reasons, and Hitler conquered other countries, tried to control Europe and dominate the world. Bush hasn't agressivly started any wars. You think he is going to attack Iraq but he hasn't yet and in any case that would just be bringing to conclusion the low level war that has existed for over a decade in the area. Even if the action would be wrong (I don't think it is but reasonable people can disagree about it) it isn't vaguely Nazi like. You're very accepting of a leader who only has a track record of two years. What do you mean that? Its been a pretty good record over two years even though there have been a few disapointments, but you seem to be implying that since he has only been president for two years that I should assume that he is at all likely to start trying to cnquer the world or big chunks of it. Personally I would rather deal with the reality of what he has done, what he has tried to do, and what he has said he will do rather then basing my opinion of the president on some paranoid fantasy. This is silly.......conservatives are people found on the right side of the political spectrum. The terms are interchangeable. The words mean a lot of different things. Some uses of the word "conservative" are not reasonably interchangeable with other uses, the same holds true (maybe even more so) for "liberal" 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. Again you look for a label that applies to different ideas and say that two people with different ideas are the same because you can apply the same label. Compare the actual ideas not what label someone may have applied to them. As for Bush's idea he is not alone in thinking an American monopoly on nukes would be a good thing. I'm sure most Americans would like that to happen, but shows no signs of thinking it will happen or of planning to make it happen. .it is ridiculous to argue this point with you when you insist that what was practiced in Russia was communism as theorized by Marx. I don't insist they are the same merely that they are alike enough to be called the same name. Modern American constitutional democracy isn't like the democracy of the ancient Greeks, and it also isn't eactly like the constitutional order imagined by the founders of our country, but we still live in a constitutional democracy. In any case you are ignoring the point. Even if you could convince me that Soviet communsim and Marxism are very different, they are both conventionally considered to be ideas on the left. You can argue against that conventional analysis if you want but you shouldn't then turn around and call other people arogant for arguing against similar conventional ideas about the right. Trent Lott - (Here is were most of my response will not be recreated) There is evidence that he may have racist thoughts and that there is a chance that he was racist to an extent, but there is not solid evidence that he is actually and currently a "full blown racist". I didn't say it was a small issue, I just said there was a lack of evidence that he is a full blown racist and that even if he is that doesn't mean the typical conservative or the typical republican is. Please point out the racist Dems. TIA. Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson ("hymietown" ect.) Senator Robert Byrd ("there are white niggers" said on national TV on Fox News Sunday, former member of the Ku Klux Klan, the evidence against him is at least as good as the evidence against Lott, if your looking to give people the benefit of the doubt then maybe you should drop both him and Lott from your list of racists), Cynthia McKinny, or for that matter affirmitive action is a racist policy although I think it would not be fair to call the party supporting it racist, but you seem to not want to give the benefit of the doubt to Republicans... I don't know if they are or not....that's why I was asking the question. I couldn't be more straight forward. When you say "how do we know" that someone "is no racist", and compare them to Hitler, then you are making an implied argument that they are racist. Be straight foward, either make it directly or drop it. This innuendo and veiled character assasination is unbecoming. " 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? Who likes attacking strawmen now. I didn't say the whole world is against Bush simply because he is Republican. In fact the whole world is not against Bush. In any case I was talking about the comparisons of Bush to Hitler, not disagreement over policy. Few people have made such comparisions. Those few tend to be the very liberal people who think of conservatives as being barely this side of satantic. 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. The evidence that Saddam is cooperating with Al Qaida is slim. The evidence that he has ties with and has supported terrorists is not. It is a well known fact that he has supported terrorism (although probably not as much as Iran has). When people have opposed his moves, he claims they are unpatriotic and suggests that they might as well be in league with the terrorists. Give me an in context quote where he made such a statement inappropriately 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. No he does not. But he does talk about them. Considering the circumstances and the concerns of the country it would be inappropriate not to mention such things. Where is the fukking evidence of Iraq's WMDs he's claimed he had for weeks now? The evidence has been in the reports of the inspectors over the last decade. What is playing stupid is assuming that the inspectors saw and got rid of everything and that Iraq hasn't been able to rebuild any of its WMD program over a 4 year period with wide spread smuggleing and no inspectors. Tim