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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (54309)	7/14/2004 9:06:03 PM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 793891

Thanks for the thoughtful reply, Bill. But for me the alternatives you pose are not relevant. I don't see going under to the social conservatives or becoming communists/socialists (in your language) as the alternative we face. It's rather the DLC centrists versus the right wing of the Republican Party. Thus, the choice is Clinton's fiscal policies coupled with more attention to improving opportunity vis a vis health insurance, more money to assist education costs, more money to relieve the property tax burdens, and a foreign policy which does not demonize us in the eyes of the world (and thus provides more security, and which while engaging in the military (and police) actions necessary to hunt down Al Q also begins the necessary business of reducing the Al Q recruitment process that our present foreign policy represents. None of that is socialism; none of that drops the terrorism issue. In return for getting that, we also put a bit more of a barrier between our freedoms and the bedroom watching folk of the far right. As for the influence of union bosses and communism, the latter is simply not worth discussing and the union bosses have precious little influence. Nothing to compare with the religious right on the Rep Party. Bush has turned the party over to them. As for the number one issue of the century, I disagree. I think reducing the threat of terrorism is well up on the list but I'm convinced that can be addressed without giving the country over to our own brand of religious fundamentalists. Someone around here wrote that the strategy for addressing the threat of the Soviet Union was to contain it and to enhance the democratic promise so that other countries, other folk wished to emulate us rather than attack us. Not a bad formula for the war on terror. It may well be that the single minded pursuit of a war on terrorism is the best way to lose the country.