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 : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Crimson Ghost who wrote (28117)	9/19/2003 10:56:22 AM
From: portage	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 89467

>>Trading Bush for Clark could be like trading Johnson for Nixon.>> The far left view is as unrealistic and bereft as the far right view in today's extremely complex world. A centrist with solid values and representative of all classes of people is what's needed, and is the only realistic alternative for Democrats in this country these days, short of a tumble into a disastrous economy that portends a working class revolution. Somehow the right wingnuts are able to use the media to fool some easily misled people and get away with their rule for awhile, benefitting the elite primarily, but they always overreach and cause a blowback. Gingrich did it, bushcheney are doing it now. There's not a large enough base for a far left rule anymore, whatever its desirability or lack thereof, given the success of 20 years of constant right wing propaganda and control of the television and radio media. And the mess that bush caused in Iraq offers no easy solutions now that we're there, but he should be made to pay for his mistakes. Instead, we will, until he leaves office in 2004. IMO.

To: Crimson Ghost who wrote (28117)	9/19/2003 11:01:56 AM
From: lurqer	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 89467

They might be better than Bush but not by much IMHO. On foreign policy, I regrettably agree. But there are other considerations for me. It's not just a MIC (Military Industrial Complex) distortion (to the point of grotesque) that bothers me about this Admin. It's an assault on a century of political evolution. This group wants a return to a late nineteenth century Plutocracy. While Clinton was far from an ideal Prez, consider what would have occurred if he hadn't been elected, and the neo-cons had emerged triumphant in a second Bush Sr. Admin. With a significantly larger army, and in the late stages of a secular bull period, their dreams of hegemony could have been carried to much greater extremes, before faltering from a lack of troops and treasure. All, JMO lurqer