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 (170582)	6/5/2003 12:03:56 AM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1579791

Conservatives are forever complaining that gov't is in their faces and taking their hard earned money. Being against something that government is doing, or beign against endless growth of government and high taxation is not being against government. Criticizing and taking arbitrary swipes is easy. Doing something positive is hard. All I hear from the right is that gov't pisses away their hard earn taxes but they don't have a clue what gov't does. How is that different from an extremist like Rudolph who believes the gov't killed his father because the FDA did not approve a cancer drug in time to save him? So the liberals are like the unibomber because he wrote enviromental manifestos as he was killing people? Yes, the unibomber is part of the extreme left but I already knew that and knew how they are different from more mainstream liberals. What I was asking is how are Rudolph and the radical right different from more traditional hard line conservatives. Do you know? Please explain the world of difference. Different people have all sorts of ideas. Reasonable people fight for them with words and votes. In this way you and I, no matter how much we disagree are more alike then either of us is to the terrorists, whatever the cause they are fighting for. What I am trying to understand is how do hard line conservatives/the Christian right differ from Rudolph? I know one issue is the use of violence but is there anything else? advocates of an aggressive foreign policy Democratic presidents have initiated more military campaigns around the world then Republicans. Iraq by itself is a pretty slim thing to try to hang a "Republicans are militarily aggressive" charge on. The issue re. Dem. vs Rep. presidents.......I am not sure if you are correct. I would have to go back over the list of presidents and see what they undertook. Its clear that Bush has broken the mold for both Rep and Dem presidents of the past. What I was saying in terms of Reps. and a strong foreign policy is that they usually are proponents for a large and strong military; pushing for military action when there is trouble; encouraging a buildup in weapons, expanding our military presence in the world, playing hard ball with our enemies, etc. emphasis on the military Not that much emphasis and these is nothing suspect about supporting a strong military. Its not necessarily wrong in concept but they push on it 24/7. proponents of a smaller gov't That is not suspect, the Dems position of supporting ever bigger government is. On the contrary, Reps. say they are for smaller gov't but what it seems to translate into is a bigger military and less soft programs. Overall, gov't ends up being the same size, only redeployed to what they like. That's why their position is suspect. Basically your whole "when there is smoke there is usually fire" argument boils down to the fact that the Democrats are more liberal and the Republicans are more conservative, so the Dems get a free ride and the Republicans are always suspect. Its not a fair or neutral standard just a club to bash the Republicans with while claiming all the while to be nice and fair. That's right.....its just plain out bashing on my part. If that's all you get out of what I am saying, then that's all you want to hear so you can get offline and complain that all liberals are the same. Why continue the debate when you've made up your mind? With the rise of Bush, there has been this whole campaign to convince the public that this is the new GOP. No longer a regional party of the South but a national party with a more sophisticated agenda. It has long been a national party with a sophisticated agenda. In concept......but not in reality. In fact the GOP strength in the south is relatively recent phenomena. The Dems got to liberal for the South so it move to support the Republicans. Recent? Its been that way since the 60s when the Dixiecrats jumped ship, and now the South is the GOP's base. I don't consider that recent at all. think there are a lot of Rep. moderates who don't share the negative perceptions of the party.......and I was prepared to believe those moderates had made a difference. However, it looks like there still are not enough of them. Again it all boils down to "liberal good, conservative bad", or at most "liberal and moderate good, conservative bad". Your defense of liberal attacks as not being the same as conservative attacks boils down to the fact that you don't like conservative ideas. That's not true and you know it. I am a strong proponent of fiscal responsibility; I was a strong proponent of welfare reform, and from what the conservatives on this thread have said, the GOP had a strong role in that development; I believe in a well armed military; I believe strongly that gov't should have the same accountability as corporations.......that's why I voted for a Rep. for mayor in LA; I believe firmly in the individual rights of people. So don't tell me that I am not open to conservative values and ideals. ted