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 (170708)	6/9/2003 4:46:42 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1579897

So you're saying that Rudolph was a run of the mill criminal who happened to have conservative leanings. No he wasn't run of the mill. He was weird and disturbed criminal who happened to have conservative leanings. 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. I don't buy any of the above Don't buy it if you don't want to, but its all true. Many conservatives don't care much about abortion. Some non-conservatives are pro-life. I know a few in each category. As for being against homosexual activity being the heart of conservatives ideology, well I know a lot of conservatives. I don't know one that would say that is the heart or part of the heart of his or her ideology. And its not that they are dishonest. Few people are obsessed with homosexuality. 1 - Iraq was a bit more then just a preemptive strike. Its basically been a low level war for 12 years. Huh? Huh, what? Iraq invaded Kuwait. Iraq signs cease fire agreement when they are defeated in Kuwait and southern Iraq. Iraq doesn't live up to cease fire agreement and also starts massacring some Iraqis in the north and south. We put in place "no fly zones in the north and south". Iraq shoots at the plane enforcing these zones, we shoot back. Iraq wouldn't let real inspections happen. Clinton shoots cruise missiles. Back and forth low level sporadic war for 12 years. We traded that for an intense war of a few weeks. Afghanistan Afghanistan wasn't preemptive. Those were not considered wars. We took control of both countries by force. That isn't a war? If they were, then we have to include the Phillipines on Bush's list. We are not taking over the Philippines or even the islands where the fighting is going on. Still it could be considered a war but it isn't preemptive, and if it is going to be considered a war then just about every president since WWII has been involved in wars usually several. Yes, when we are attacked, Dem presidents respond. Even the Vietnam war was started under Eisenhower but accelerated under Kennedy. We did very little under Eisenhower. A few advisors, about as much of a war for us as Columbia or the Philippines or earlier El Salvador. Then under Kennedy and Johnson it got to be a real war. If there are differences within the GOP wouldn't that result in inconsistencies with their idealogy? If two people disagree that isn't an inconsistency even if they belong to the same organization. If one person believes one way but then acts in another, or wildly changes what he says he believes in all the time, that would be an inconsistency. " The bible does not say "thou shalt not stop a murderer", or "thou shall not liberate an oppressed people from a brutal tyrant. " Yes, and your point is? You quoted it. "Also the Dems have had a big part in our nations wars." You have gone from pre-emptive war to war in general. That was not my original premise My statement was in a direct response to war being the last resort. The Dems are about as likely to resort to war as the GOP. I think you should think carefully about what the words "discrimination of any sort" mean. A better word would be racial bigotry. Please explain. Discrimination. Esp when followed by "of any sort", can mean a lot of different things. Not all of them bad. Racial bigotry, and discrimination based on it are bad. The Republicans don't advocate bigotry either. Of course, not publicly. The Reps. are many things but no one ever called them stupid. The vast majority of Republicans don't support racial bigotry. Its not some plot for appearances sake, because if they say anything in support of bigotry they will look bad. Anyone supporting bigotry would look bad to conservatives as well as to liberals and moderates. but no one ever called them stupid. I've read articles in conservative publications, where the Republican party called the stupid party, but it was in relation to this quote. - "The two major political parties can be summed up this way: There are two parties, one is the Stupid Party and the other is the Evil Party. Occasionally these two parties create legislation that is both stupid and evil. This is called bipartisanship." - Andrew Grooms Well, Falwell sure does it often enough. I don't even think Falwell believes he has the power to condemn people to hell. If he says they are going to hell (and I'm not sure that he says that, I don't spend my time listening to him) it would not be because he sent them there. The bible doesn't encourage condemning people to eternal hell. "Neither does the Republican party." Then why did conservatives condemn the Dixie Chicks to eternal hell? And how many people actually did this? A mere handful among tens of millions of conservatives. You have fringe yahoos in every large group. Also they did not condemn the Dixie Chicks to hell, and most of them don't think they did. A literal handful if even that would actually think they have the power to do so, and that thought doesn't equal actual power. Condemning someone to hell is not saying "you are going to hell", it would be actually making sure they get there. I have no reason to think the Dixie chicks will wind up there, and if they do it will not be because of the people who sent them hate mail. "I can certainly tell you I have never seen a statement from the Republican party that they where condemning someone to hell." How about a statement from a conservative? See above about "condemning someone to hell", but if you mean saying they are going to go there yes I've heard both conservatives and non-conservatives say someone else is going to hell, or that they belong there. I made my case.....accept it. Your case was to make an assertion and then say "Deal with it! " I don't think that qualifies as having made your case. 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." That makes absolutely no sense. You don't like parts of conservative ideology that you would call less then humanistic. But the fact that you call them that doesn't mean they are that. Most of them are either "humanistic", or neutral in terms of humanism, or are not really characteristic of conservatives. Tim