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 : Don't Blame Me, I Voted For Kerry -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bearcatbob who wrote (16622)	4/20/2004 10:12:10 PM
From: American Spirit	Respond to of 81568

Bushie BIG LIE #1 is trying to confuse Bush with America. In other words "So and so criticizes Bush" so "So and so attacks American". It is the biggest bunch of hogwash. All dreamt up by the RNC and Fox News. Speakiung of Fox news, they have gotten increasing partisan pro Cheney-Bush lately. They simply refuse to give the other side of the story unless Alan Colmes is talking. Amazing anyone takes that network seriously.

To: Bearcatbob who wrote (16622)	4/20/2004 10:21:02 PM
From: CalculatedRisk	Respond to of 81568

Now Bob, "neocon" is a word I try to avoid these days. There is a group of people, many working for the AEI, that call themselves "neocons". The idea was that they were New Conservatives. When others started referring to them as "neocons" (their own appellation), they complained that "neocons" was anti-Semitic! Their logic was neo was from "neo-fascist" and "con" implied convict or had some other negative connotation. Amazing. I am so color / race / ethnic blind; I didn't even realize that many of the self described "neocons" were Jewish. I never meant it as a slur, rather to distinguish these people from "conservatives", since nothing they espouse is conservative. These days I just try to point out that their ideas are flawed (from foreign policy to economics). One of their core concepts is that Defense (really Offense) is the driver of international relationships, and therefore, the Defense Department is more important than the State Department. We have seen this implemented in the Bush Administration, with the expected results (no post Iraq war planning as an example). Another concept is the Milton Friedman idea that 1) social spending is bad, 2) if you have a balanced budget, you will not have the political will to cut social spending, so 3) you run massive deficits to constrain future social spending. In recent days, we have had two distinguished economists, retiring Fed Governor Parry, and "new conservative" Stanford economist Dr. Barro, state that that is the goal of the Bush administration. If this is the Bush goal, whether or not it is good economics, it is definitely dishonest. Oh well, enough of a ramble.