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 (170891)	6/9/2003 6:29:34 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1579935

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. Many? I don't want to call you a liar but I find that highly suspect......the only conservatives I have found who are pro choice with any regularity are usually both moderate and women. 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. Maybe we are playing with semantics. I think that many conservatives are opposed to homosexuals. Otherwise, Sanatorum would not have have felt so comfortable making his comments about gays. 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. Let me cut this off here. You're telling yourself a fairy tale. EOM Afghanistan Afghanistan wasn't preemptive. I see, the ruling body, the Taliban, invited us into the country. You call it what you want but it looks to me like a war where the ruling gov't was toppled. Those were not considered wars. We took control of both countries by force. That isn't a war? When are you talking about? Grenada and Panama? 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. Its my understanding that with Grenada and Panama, we were helping out the ruling gov'ts then much like we are doing in the Phillipines today. <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. Don't tell me that........the whole Southeast Asia domino theory which laid out the groundwork for war in Vietnam was developed under the Eisenhower administration. Frankly, it was just another in the many stupid theories promoted by conservatives and the military to keep us in some war and unfortunately, John Kennedy bought into 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. When attacked! The GOP under Bush didn't wait for that possibility. 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. Once again, my case would be hard to prove so I will take your word on this one. 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 What makes you think that Grooms was referring to the GOP when he called one of them stupid? If he thinks like D.Ray, then he meant the Dems. ted