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 (170633)	6/5/2003 8:46:24 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1579893

He was anti abortion and anti gay...... And many criminals are pro-choice, or any of a million other things. What did the Olympic bombing have to do with these things? for many conservatives, those two issues are at the heart of their ideology. For some conservative pro-life views are the hart of the ideology. For some non-conservatives pro-life views are very important. Very few, conservative or otherwise have being against gays or homosexual activity as the heart of their ideology. It is rare that an American president makes a pre-emptive strike against another nation. Do you have examples of ones that did? 1 - Iraq was a bit more then just a preemptive strike. Its basically been a low level war for 12 years. 2 - For it to be clear that Bush had made a wholesale departure from the doctrines of his predecessors from both parties I would expect more then one example. 3 - Grenada and Panama can be considered preemptive strikes. I'm sure there are others but those are two that I personally remember. When Reps. are in office, there is a tendency for gov't spending to shift from soft programs to military spending. Do you disagree with that statement? Yes. The "soft programs" as you call them, almost always grow, and often grow faster then DoD spending even when Republicans are in office. "You should drop the "pushing for military action" Democratic presidents have pushed for military action as often as Republicans." Not nearly as often as Reps. Look in to the history of armed conflicts that the US has been in since WWII. Look who was president during each of them, big or small. Now note that Republicans have been president for the majority of the years during this period but not the majority of time spent in armed conflict. So then, you're saying that there is considerable inconsistency in ideology within the GOP party. Is that a correct statement? If two people disagree I wouldn't call that an inconsistency. I would say there is differences within the GOP. I would also say the some within the GOP (just like some of the Dems) fail to support or live up to their ideology. I say conservatives are bad when they are bad, not by some liberal standard but by standards established by the New Testament. Well now you are introducing a new idea. I don't think the Dems would meet those standards very well but I'll examine your comments about how the Republicans meet them. The bible does not advocate war, not even as a last resort. The bible does not say "thou shalt not stop a murderer", or "thou shall not liberate an oppressed people from a brutal tyrant. Also the Dems have had a big part in our nations wars. The bible does not advocate discrimination of any sort. I think you should think carefully about what the words "discrimination of any sort" mean. A better word would be racial bigotry. The Republicans don't advocate bigotry either. The bible does not encourage hypercritical comments against one's neighbor. Not really true, but also not something that stops the Democrats from their frequent hypercritical comments. The bible doesn't encourage condemning people to eternal hell. Neither does the Republican party. Also from the perspective of even specifically the religious right (rather then the secular institution of the whole party) people have no power to condemn someone else to hell. God is the only one who can make such judgments but really the biblical idea is that people can condemn themselves to hell through not following God. Normally I don't talk about hell. I'm not even sure it exists. I can certainly tell you I have never seen a statement from the Republican party that they where condemning someone to hell. "It has long been a national party with a sophisticated agenda." Well, then, your standards are lower than mind. No its more that you measurement is off. Actually I could see an argument that neither parties agenda is all that sophisticated because the more detailed and sophisticated you get the more you are likely to alienate some part of the party. The official agendas of the parties tend to be simple. The specific agendas of people within the party can be complex and sophisticated (or they can also be simple). Sorry, the party barely was able to get 48% of the national vote in the 2000 presidential election after the Dems. had been shamed by Clinton committing adultery. And perjury. But the Dems where barely able to get 48% after a charismatic president and a long period of economic growth. The South has been Rep. since the 60s. Deal with it! Many states in the south had Democratic majorities in their legislators and/or had democratic governors into the 80s or even 90s. Now such majorities are few and far between but in the 60s and 70s then where the norm. I don't like the parts of conservative idelogy that are less than humanistic. Most of the parts of their ideology that you would call against humanism are either humanistic or neutral. Also your response doesn't even try to answer the point. Because you don't like those ideas attacks against them don't really count as attacks, at least judging by what you post here. However even if the Republicans where actually demonic your point would have no validity. The truth is the Dems attack as frequently and brutally as the Republicans, probably more so. The substance of the actual policies and political ideas is a different issue then who attacks the other side more often and nastier. We can have a separate conversation about those policies (and to an extent we have been) but they are irrelevant to the initial question. Tim