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 : Polite Political Discussion- is it Possible? An Experiment. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: thames_sider who wrote (800)	8/10/2006 11:55:14 AM
From: epicure	Respond to of 1695

ah what if if only more people what iffed nice post, thanks for putting the time in to write it

To: thames_sider who wrote (800)	8/10/2006 6:07:25 PM
From: Brumar89	Respond to of 1695

I think you'll be wrong on .... I guess I need to repeat that the scenario I posted was a made-up hypothetical one for amusement only. I don't really expect genetic manipulation of the kind I posted of to ever happen. If it had any simple genetic cause it would have very quickly bred out ... Hence it must have no simple cause. .... Or, there is not any reliable genetic cause. ... the whole argument is moot I don't think homosexuality has a genetic cause at all. I think sexual orientation / preference (which is more than just hetero-homo) is probably caused by hormone levels during key periods of development (in the womb and around the onset of puberty). Others have posted about gay people they know and famous gay people and how swell they are. I realize I don't know very many personally. I think I have two (of my very many) cousins who are gay - one is said to live with a roommate in Kansas City - but I haven't seen either of them for many years. And then my first wife was bi-sexual. So I know for certain bi-sexuals really exist, in addition to straight and gay. Cause I KNOW she liked hetero sex and I KNOW she liked girls too. I suspect she's living with a g/f these days which is fine with me (anyone but me). I don't know if any of this affects my opinions on same sex marriage or gays at all - I don't think so. And I don't think my ex or the cousins I mentioned are victims of a cruel society because they don't have the option of legally marrying someone of the same sex. I don't think they should marry anyone at all, especially my ex. -------------- Imagine, for instance, if the Bush cabinet had tried a "what if" Oh, I expect they thought about lots of what if scenarios. I once read a very good "what if" piece dealing with the subject what if Bush had left Saddam alone. If I can find it, I'll post it.

To: thames_sider who wrote (800)	8/11/2006 12:56:20 PM
From: Brumar89	Respond to of 1695

What if ... Bush had not invaded Iraq? Someone named Rambi or Rambe posted something interesting along those lines several years ago. This remark in your post brought that to mind: Imagine, for instance, if the Bush cabinet had tried a "what if": "What if not all of our rosy assumptions about Iraq come true", perhaps, or "if we overthrow Saddam what do we do then"? <g> I'd post the Rambi/Rambe post if I could find it, but I can't. So I will do my own what ifing ... What if Bush hadn't invaded Iraq? I think many Bush critics would now be condemning him for leaving a documented terror sponsor and WMD developer like Saddam in power. Remembering that candidate Gore had promised to remove Saddam if elected, they'd assert that a President Gore would have likely removed Saddam in 2001, upsetting and preventing the 911 attacks. The claims of Czech intelligence, never abandoned to this day, that Mohammed Atta had met with an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague would be taken very seriously by many who dismiss them now and would figure prominently in the 911 conspiracy theories popular with so many on the far left. Likewise, Vladimir Putin's public assertions that Russian intelligence had provided warnings to the Bush administration that Iraq's regime was plotting terror attacks against American targets would be used as ammunition to attack the weak-kneed Bush administration that had put Americans in danger by choosing to leave Saddam in power. Some would suggest some secret oil deals were behind the soft-on-Saddam policy or perhaps some cynical "realpolitik" idea designed to preserve Saddam in place as a threat to Iran. Remember all that old photo of Rumsfeld shaking Saddam's hand that is proof to many that Saddam is a "buddy" of Bush's defense secretary? What's the matter with Bush, some critics would say, Saddam tried to kill his own father, and he still won't take Saddam on? Some other things we'd hear are: Didn't George Tenet, longtime CIA head under both Clinton and Bush assure Bush the WMD case against Saddam was "a slam dunk"? Hasn't former President Clinton and his defense secretary said that when he left office Iraq possessed stocks of illegal weapons? Didn't the Clinton administration reveal, in Osama bin Ladin's indictment and in public statements by Richard Clarke, that al Qaida and Saddam's government had an agreement to cooperate on the development of WMD? If the Republicans hadn't tied the last couple years of the Clinton administration down with fighting scandal charges and an impeachment attempt, isn't it likely that the hawkish President Clinton himself would have brought down Saddam's regime? After all, Clinton had threatened war with Iraq in 1998 and had gotten Congress to pass the Iraq Liberation Act, which made the overthrow of Saddam's regime a national policy, hadn't he? Isn't the Bush-tolerated Saddam regime still sheltering the Iraqi who manufactured the explosive used in the first attempt to bring down the WTC? Wasn't money wired from an Iraqi bank to the assassins of US diplomat Lawrence Foley just before his assassination? And didn't one of the captured assassins confess the assassination order came from an al Qaida affiliated leader operating in Saddam's Iraq? Why is Bush allowing the UN to veto the use of American power? President Clinton didn't let the UN prevent him from dealing with the destabilization of the Balkans. He saw a danger to world peace and security and acted boldly and successfully without UN sanction. If Bush had left Saddam in power, Iran's nuclear development program would now be laid at the Bush administrations door. For leaving Saddam in power, instead of removing him as a Democratic President would have done, Bush forced Iran to develop its own nuclear weapons to counter the Iraqi threat. Remember that Saddam had already used WMD's on Iran. Obviously leaving Saddam in power forced Iran to develop its own deterrent. And surely, people would say, allowing Saddam to thumb his nose at UN arms control inspectors for 16 years, taught outlaw arms proliferators like North Korea they had nothing to fear from the US. ------------------------------------ Common sense tells us that a lot of criticism of Bush is nothing more than partisan sniping driven by bitterness at seeing conservative Republicans in power. After all, Bush is criticized by Democrats for a Medicare prescription plan more generous than the one a former Democratic Presidential candidate had called for and his education initiates are condemned by Democrats despite being co-authored by Ted Kennedy. Partisan sniping wouldn't be eliminated if Bush had charted an opposite course on Iraq. Instead, it is more likely the partisan sniping would simply be a mirror image of what we see now.