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 (156338)	12/17/2002 6:21:26 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1578704

I am suggesting that he does not have enough of a track record for us to just assume he knows what he is doing and that he is doing a good job. You think this but it doesn't stop you from complaining that he has done a bad job... Yes, because I am not all that convinced he is doing a good job. See the article posted by Al from The Guardian, an English paper. They conclude as I do that the war in Afghanistan started out fine but now it's been set aside, half finished. The track record is not extensive yet but it's enough to tentatively suggest that he has done a good job. Real analysis wont be possible until after his presidency is over probably years after. So far, what do you consider to be well done? What is my paranoid fantasy? That he will start a war with Iraq? If so, its hardly a fantasy nor is it terribly paranoid........ Its sort of a fantasy in the sense that he wouldn't be starting the war but that was not what I was talking about. I was talking about your war of conquest claims and your other implied claims about Bush being possibly being a racist with a huge hidden agenda. My point was based on the Lott revelations........apparently, you can't tell who the person is by their outward appearance nor by their position in Congress. I find that to be more typical of Reps than Dems. That's why Bush has become more suspect......he had to have known of Lott's background and yet, he agreed to sign off on Lott's appointment as majority leader of the Senate. What does that say about Bush? Like most people, I don't have time to do a thorough background check on every elected official. Therefore, I was surprised to learn that a man of Lotts stature has such a negative history. Someone on the right is also called a conservative. Its not unusual to interchange the words that way. As for Hitler, his politics was considered to be on the right of the political spectrum; therefore, its considered that he shared ideologies with other conservatives. The point is the word conservative itself means different things. If you want to stipulate that "on the right" means the same thing as "conservative" then the same holds for on the right. So the fact that you can apply the same label to two different people or things does not suggest that they are in anyway similar. In this case I wouldn' even apply the same label, but even accepting the conventional thought that you should it doesn't mean there is any real simularity. None of Hitler's major ideas are major ideological ideas are major ideologies of Bush. I think Bush and Hitler are sometimes compared because they both have taken an aggressive stance with their enemies. However, I don't believe Bush is another Hitler..........I think its an exaggeration to make a point. Its not exageration its fabrication, or to be generous its an error. Its unfortunate you think its fabrication because its not. In a very short period of time, Bush has stirred up the pot with a number of our enemies or potential enemies, agitated a whole religion, Islam, and has alienated most of our allies. In fact, his behavior is very disturbing. A reactionary is one who wants to make things like they were in another era. By definition, both Bush and Hitler are/were reactionaries. If you mean they wanted anything to be like it was in a different era then perhaps a majority of the world is reactionary. If you mean they wanted everything to be exactly like it was in any other specific era then neither Bush nor Hitler is a reactionary. If they where reactionary about the same thing then you would have a strong paralel, but otherwise the statement is so vague its almost meaningless. I know you have a dictionary. You need to look up the words. Its ridiculous to argue over them. If you look at what they actually did, little of it was directed at making things like what they used to be. Hitler wanted to conquer Europe, Germany had never ruled Europe. Hitler wanted a Europe without Jews. Jews had been part of Europe for ages. Let me make a couple of points and then I plan to drop this subject because it doesn't seem to go anywhere. First, Hitler initially tied his expansion of Germany to his goal of regaining parts of Germany lost in the first World War.....certainly a reactionary one. In addition, there were germanic people living in lands like Czechoslavakia that at some time in Europe's history had been a part of the Germananic empire but then had been separated. He wanted them back into the fold. Once again, he was fulfilling another reactionary goal. Because he was fukked up, he took it one step further by determining that the Germans were THE Aryan race and were entitled to rule the entire continent. Like I said in my prior posts, he was part reactionary and part twisted. While I agree J. Jackson is a racist, I thought we were talking elected officials. Byrd is an elected offical and his former membership in the KK is well known. Cynthia Mckenny was and elected offical. The others I mentioned did run as democrats. I suppose taking a page from your book I could ask how do I know that the rest of the Democrats don't follow the lead of people like these? But I won't seriously ask the question as I think it foolish except perhaps as a rhetorical device. I agree about Byrd.......I didn't know about him. However, Byrd has never had as significant a position in the Dem party as Lott has in the Rep. party. However, that doesn't change the fact that he's a piglet too. As for other Dems being racist, I wouldn't lose any sleep. You'd learn a lot more doing racial background checks on the Reps. ted