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 (127390)	12/18/2009 1:01:00 PM
From: cosmicforce	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 540830

It is also worth noting that the parties have evolved. These are not the parties of 30 years ago and to draw any conclusions about Democrats and Republicans of the 1960/70s to now is pretty specious. The Perot / Reform Party members are still disenfranchised and generally were more progressive than what is typically called paleoconservative or neoconservative. Issues pertaining to small government and State's Rights seem to have been tossed aside by the Republicans. They now try to legislate key issues from DC. IMO,this is a fundamental change opinion of the Republican party then and the party we have today. Most of my life, both the parties have been the parties of continued wars. If I was around at the time, I wouldn't have liked Korea. I didn't like Vietnam. I didn't like it when Clinton involved us in Bosnia. Name the conflict, and I can tell you it probably didn't have much of a compelling basis for us to engage in it the way we chose. I'm not an isolationist but I don't feel that conducting reactive military operations without clear objectives and visions for the end game is EVER a good idea. Now what party is that a consistent plank?

To: JohnM who wrote (127390)	12/18/2009 1:51:17 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 540830

And I many of us here have made the same points. It is not like these points are in any way novel. They are good points- points that most of us accept. But they were presented a bit bizarrely if the guy wanted to communicate with both sides of the spectrum.

To: JohnM who wrote (127390)	12/18/2009 4:04:43 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 540830

You've missed the important point about the almost unanimous reaction here, Karen. The first response was to say something like, the guy's right, political talk has gone to the proverbial dogs. Period. Stop. Then several of us entered into what makes his particular piece suspect and how that could have been improved. I haven't missed the point. You flipped the sequence. Had the sequence of responses it received been as you describe, I would not have reacted to them as I did.