Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices Message Board

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

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: TimF who wrote (185922)	3/31/2004 9:06:57 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) of 1576160

Let me remind you that since WW II, debt went down under the Dems and has increased dramatically under Reagan and Bush. Debt went up most of the time since WWII no matter who was president at least since Johnson. Most of the increase in spending during those years went to programs that where started by FDR or Johnson. Until recently Republican presidents hadn't push for such big new entitlements but Bush changed that. That's what I mean by "he learnt from the Democrats". If that's true, why did debt as a percent of GDP go down steadily during the Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy/LBJ/Nixon, and Carter years. Then went up under Reagan, fell again under Clinton and now is going up under Bush. I wish the GOP did follow the Dems lead. zfacts.com who claim the CIA mislead them re. Iraq when it turns out they bypassed the CIA completely? You fail to adequately support the contention that the Bush administration bypassed the CIA entirely or the implied contention that the CIA said there where no WMD in Iraq. Tenet said that a separate group [from the CIA] was set up and Bush followed their conclusions as opposed to the CIA. Tenet just recently testified to this arrangement and its a matter of public record. As for partisanship, I see you as being partisan but not to the point where I would normally care to make a big deal about it, but when you attack others for their partisanship and thrust aside their arguments against it insisting that the are "partisan" unless they "start criticizing Bush for BS", then you are presenting a ridiculous standard. If people attack Bush they are non-partisan but if they don't they are partisan? I have not said that. What I did say is that when someone like yourself says Bush never suggested that Saddam's WMD threatened this country, then I have to assume the person is being partisan. The reason......because both Bush and Cheney at different times did say that Saddam and his weapons were a clear and present danger to the US. If you are going to defend Bush and his policies, then be sure its on solid ground; otherwise, it looks partisan. That's an interesting redefinition of the word partisan. You think someone is a bad president and everyone who disagrees is a partisan? Nonsense. No. You were defending Bush in areas that are indefensible or at least questionable. ted

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next