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: Bill who wrote (230665)	5/10/2007 4:40:37 PM
From: Rambi	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

To me, that smacks of 1960 all over again Absolutely. I was going to bring that up, since I remember those elections very clearly. I was a Catholic in a small Southern town and we were't considered REAL Christians. (In fact, my first boyfriend's father, a rabid Southern Baptist, was very upset when we started dating). I was studying for Confirmation at the time, and we talked a lot about these issues during the campaign. In the Pope we Hope. I mean, people really believed this stuff. That mentality is still alive and well in evangelical communities, and it was mainly to them I was alluding because of Michael's thought that the religious might vote for Romney. I think it would be in spite of, rather than because of.

To: Bill who wrote (230665)	5/10/2007 5:07:11 PM
From: neolib	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

To me, that smacks of 1960 all over again. What do you do with someone who believes a detailed, alternate, fake history of the New World? If David Duke ran for Pres claiming an alternate history of WWII wrt to Jews, people would feel quite justified in rejecting him as an idiot. If Romney runs claiming an alternate history of Jews in the New World, should we not also reject him as an idiot? I suppose that a few thousand years might be construed as cover for any wacky idea?