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: SilentZ who wrote (195468)	7/22/2004 10:29:46 PM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1572191

>Well, that's almost it. It's hard to find a true liberal who is also tough on crime, you know, because liberalism has traditionally viewed criminals as victims of society. Teddy, John, do you see it that way? I don't. I think there are times where that's the case, but hey, it's a case by case thing. What I've learned is that the GOP says its tougher on crime and budget deficits, better with national security, more proactive when it comes to smaller gov't etc. over and over again like mantra. Its a very effective approach to campaigning. You say something enough times and we all begin to believe it. Of course, all to often its not true. For an example, the national crime rate was high under Reagan and much reduced under Clinton. The Clinton administration implemented some innovative approaches to dealing with crime on the local level. For an example, the city of Houston was particularly creative in the early/mid 1990s when it came to crime prevention and enforcement.....when Clinton saw how effective their approach was, he encouraged other cities to emulate Houston's program and set up a carrot and stick approach to make it happen. In fact, the GOP mayor of LA implemented some of the Houston approach in LA. The three strikes law has been effective in reducing crime in CA and getting criminals off the streets. Wilson, the former governor and a Republican, and the state have taken credit for this stricter approach to law enforcement; however, the law was actually developed and implemented first in WA state in 1993 under a Democratic governor. ;~) en.wikipedia.org digitalwa.statelib.wa.gov So you have to be careful when people moronically repeat something over and over again; everyone begins to believe its true even when it isn't. And trust me when I tell you, the GOP is not nearly as good as they would have us believe. Bush has made that one VERY clear. But I think you know that. <g> ted

To: SilentZ who wrote (195468)	7/22/2004 10:34:04 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Respond to of 1572191

Z, But falsely so. In fact, he was pissed off about the Bush stance in the war and did not support the Iraq war. He felt we should've done more in Afghanistan, and I agree with that. Yeah, you already said he wasn't going to vote Republican. I was just giving my explanation as to why he was reluctant to vote Democrat as well. Teddy, John, do you see it that way? I don't. I think there are times where that's the case, but hey, it's a case by case thing. I'm not saying liberals hand out "Get Out Of Jail Free" cards. But they have typically focused on solving societal ills that may breed crime, such as poverty or injustice, over more strict enforcement of the law. It's that "case by case" thing that ideally shouldn't interfere with actual law enforcement, but does anyway in the real world due to reasons that I won't go into right now. He also holds the stupid conspiracy theory about Bush waiting to parade around Osama before the election. I don't believe that garbage. A conspiracy theorist, huh? ;-) Tenchusatsu