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 (170599)	6/5/2003 1:04:14 AM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1579857

Criticizing and taking arbitrary swipes is easy. Doing something positive is hard. That much is right. Criticizing the government is easy. Actually reigning it in is hard, but it won't get any easier if we stop criticizing. What I was asking is how are Rudolph and the radical right different from more traditional hard line conservatives. One thing is that mainstream conservatives are supporters of law and order. I can't give you the complete list for this individual because I don't know that much about him. Apparently he was not motivated by conservative ideology but by the death of his father. Those two things alone show him as being further from mainstream conservatives then the unibomber is from mainstream liberals. What I am trying to understand is how do hard line conservatives/the Christian right differ from Rudolph? The reports I have seen are conflicted about what motivated Rudolph. His actions are pretty well known and they are not supported by either mainstream Christianity or mainstream conservatism, they are not representative of the actions or attitudes of most of the religious right. Its clear that Bush has broken the mold for both Rep and Dem presidents of the past. That isn't at all clear. 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 You should drop the "pushing for military action" Democratic presidents have pushed for military action as often as Republicans. And "encouraging a buildup in weapons ", that really isn't true either unless you are talking about what you already mentioned under "proponents for a large and strong military". All the rest is pretty much good except for "playing hard ball with our enemies", which is sometimes good and sometimes not. Reps. say they are for smaller gov't but what it seems to translate into is a bigger military and less soft programs. A large majority of government spending is for non military programs, if we spent nothing on the military real spending would still be up in recent years. As for "less soft programs", unfortunately this isn't true. The spending has increased every year even when adjusting for inflation and population growth. Overall, gov't ends up being the same size, only redeployed to what they like. That's why their position is suspect. Their position is just fine, what's suspect is too many Republican's commitment to it as almost every category of spending goes up year after year. But then its not like all the decisions are made by conservative Republicans. You might get a majority of conservative Republicans to vote for restraint on spending but probably not a majority of all Republicans and certainly not an overall majority of Congress or voters. That's right.....its just plain out bashing on my part. If that's all you get out of what I am saying... That's all that I'm getting because that's all that you are giving. There could be more that you are not articulating but what you have actually done is push the idea that liberals and conservatives should be measured by the standards of liberals, and then when the don't measure up you say "see conservatives really are bad". If you want to do more then preach to the choir you are going to have to have more neutral and objective standards. To the extent that any of your standards have any validity (and most don't) you exaggerated the wrongs done by the conservatives and minimize those done by liberals. It has long been a national party with a sophisticated agenda. In concept......but not in reality. In both. 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. The GOP didn't solidify its control of the South until the 80s, in fact the Dems still had support there in to the 90s. 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. OK I'll modify the statement. You don't believe in a large part of the conservative agenda. You try to set your dislike of these ideas as somehow being different then conservative's dislike of liberal ideas. Your defense of liberal's attacks on conservative's amounts to the fact that you don't like the ideas they are attacking. You apply different standards for each party. When it comes to slinging the mud the Democrats don't need any lessens from the GOP. Tim