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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JohnM who wrote (49146)	2/14/2008 8:36:11 AM
From: Dale Baker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 543042

It's useful to see that campaign rhetoric on both sides flows to extreme levels with ideas that it may not be possible to implement or sustain. When both sides get past catering to the base in the primaries, perhaps we could get both sensible policies on our domestic needs and a security policy that addresses the real threats we face without trampling on our budget, liberties or allies excessively. Campaigns are always full of overstuffed words that need to be deflated now and then.

To: JohnM who wrote (49146)	2/14/2008 8:39:38 AM
From: slacker711	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 543042

It's also interesting that a divisive politics--the politics of fear--is considered as bad as a unifying politics--the politics of hope. The politics of pushing the political culture toward addressing infrastructure needs, improving education, ditto for healthcare, etc. is considered as harmful as talk of folk who don't agree with you as not patriots. I wouldnt put Obama in the category but I certainly see some of the populist rhetoric of Edwards as divisive as the politics of fear or the much derided "welfare queens". The Republicans label those who dont support there foreign policy as unpatriotic, the Democrats label those who dont support their domestic policies as heartless or robber barons. Not much difference to me. Slacker

To: JohnM who wrote (49146)	2/14/2008 8:45:19 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 543042

a divisive politics--the politics of fear--is considered as bad as a unifying politics--the politics of hope. I don't think you've framed that quite right. It's the politics of unwarranted fear vs the politics of outlandish promises. I, for one, find them both unhelpful. Maybe it's a better feeling for the victim to be duped than to be frightened. But on a practical level they are both bogus and both unhealthy. The politics of pushing the political culture toward addressing infrastructure needs, improving education, ditto for healthcare, etc. is considered as harmful as talk of folk who don't agree with you as not patriots. Seems to me that that's outside the frame. It's certainly outside my frame. One again, in any example or comparison, there is a key element of match plus a bunch of extraneous elements. Critics will fetch one of the extraneous elements to try to discredit the key element. That's bogus. Now, since you first offered the comparison, perhaps you had something else in mind but my response was based on the key element of false hopes vs false fears. Or perhaps you've just missed the falseness of some of Obama's hopes.