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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (122459)	12/29/2003 9:06:43 AM
From: goldworldnet	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Indeed, the malevolence of which Churchill spoke was Communism and only to the casual reader or worse could anything else be discerned. He had great respect for the Jewish people and made it his introduction. SOME people like Jews and some do not; but no thoughtful man can doubt the fact that they are beyond all question the most formidable and the most remarkable race which has ever appeared in the world. fpp.co.uk * * *

To: Neocon who wrote (122459)	12/29/2003 12:51:44 PM
From: marcos	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

Well if you click back there, first there was Krupp, then Manchester, followed by Churchill, in reply to which i used the term 'neocon', not 'zionist', so i stand before you humbly nuancée on that distinction You have since pasted in the piece whole - #reply-19634768 .... Churchill is dead and gone, he saw bolshevism and wrote on it, however we are unable to read his thoughts on the progression from bolsheviks through trotskyists to the current PNAC flavour of neocontrol busheviks Would Churchill have supported complete subjugation of the planet to a small group of ideologues? .... perhaps so, he was after all, as Nadine pointed out, a 'real old-time tory' .... i do think this arguable however - Churchill loved parliament, the cut and thrust of it for sure, but before and after that the idea of it, the idea that by freely debating ideas man will advance his species, and you cannot convince me that, given immortality, he would long stand opposed to the notion of a functional parliament of democracies And if he did, well, why should the Rest of Us care ...