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: Joe NYC who wrote (175648)	9/30/2003 7:08:32 PM
From: Alighieri	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1570745

Suppose it is millions killed by a nuclear weapon. Is that still ok with you, or would it be ok to pre-empt such an action? Do you need a doctrine to act on such a disaster? The problems with pre-emption as the admin states it is that it also goes with pre-eminence, or the order of supremacy. This is not the basis for cooperation with the nations of the world. It's all a pattern as you see later. What is wrong with unilateralism if you are doing a good thing? If it's a good thing, chances are others will agree and join. You mean the same UN that handed Libya the chairmanship of Human Rights Commission? No, the same UN that bush bashed and he is now asking to help pay for Iraq reconstruction, while we refuse to give it any say over its future. French? How quickly we forget that we could not get a simple majority to support our resolution in the UN...even countries that are strong supporters saw no wisdom in this one. Want a few more? Canada, Mexico, Germany, Russia, China, Peru, India, Pakistan, and a number of (needy) African nations....and yes, France too. What exactly is enviromental order? The recognition that the environment is not a national topic, rather it is a world concern. And a recognition that America needs to lead the fight to protect it for it's future generations...and a recognition that what is good for industry is not always in the best interest of the earth. bush exited Kyoto and promised a substitute. That was three years ago almost, and the world is still waiting. I think the founding fathers guided by religious faith did much better job at protecting liberties by the US constitution than most other countries They also created a clear distinction between matters of faith and governing a nation. I could see a president from your party doing exactly the same thing, without any complaints from you, You are reaching far beyond your knowledge. The former president was from my party, and he delivered 8 years of peace, prosperity, environmental responsibility, cooperation with the nations of the world, and more. Unfortunately he transgressed on personal matters, and for that I have been critical of him on this forum. which is that it is the obsession with the person on your part, rather than ideology. This is convenient, lazy and false. I have given you many reasons where ideology has translated into concrete action, and it is that to which i object. Al

To: Joe NYC who wrote (175648)	10/1/2003 7:48:55 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1570745

I could see a president from your party doing exactly the same thing, without any complaints from you, which is another indication that David Brooks is right in his analysis, which is that it is the obsession with the person on your part, rather than ideology. Sorry but that's bull........Bush is disliked because he's not very bright, and his presentation is rough and usually duplicitous and his implementation poor. During the campaign, he presented himself as a compassionate conservative, uninterested in nation building and states' rights. His administration has proven to be just the opposite. He gives the impression of being religiously devout but I was watching when he and Cheney cursed on tv because they thought the mikes were off.......religious people usually don't curse esp. in public. In many ways, his administration has become one that is radically conservative, starting wars because he wants to and blowing off allies because they don't share our point of view and he is unwilling to compromise. I don't think Bush is an ideologue but he represents a group of ideologues. Therefore, he comes off as one since he is the one who presents their views and ideas. For me, ideologues are the most offensive people on the planet; to whit, Osama bin Laden. Conservatives don't notice these nuances....and they ignore the flaws and the foibles. They are willing to excuse behavior that shouldn't be excused because essentially, Bush represents their point of view and they're sick of 8 years of Clintonism. However, the rest of us can't ignore the nuances because 1. they appear much bigger to us, and 2. they are taking us further down a road we didn't want to go down in the first place. Plus, we are appalled by the foibles, the flaws and the radicalism. The whole experience of Bush makes clear that the system has to become more open so that we get a better caliber people to the top. The Bushes, the Arnolds and the Grahams don't have the qualities to be president or governor. Just because a guy is rich and likeable does not make him a good candidate. We need more Clintons, Deans and McClintocks rising to the surface who are not rich but capable and bright. The presidency should not cost $150 million. It should cost no more than 1/15 of that amount and no party should be able to spend more than a set figure. Better prequalifications wouldn't hurt either. ted