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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: greenspirit who wrote (44251)	10/9/2000 3:27:53 PM
From: PartyTime	Respond to of 769670

>>>It looks like after complaining about everyone talking about personalities or character, that's all you're willing to discuss.<<< Yes, I'm concerned about flaws that I see in the leadership ability of George W. Bush. I'm on record as stating I'm not voting for Gore, however I view Gore as more preferrable than Bush. All of my comments are and have been so rooted. >>>I believe your analysis is flawed in many ways. Primarily in the way in which you dismiss Gore's lies as "metaphorical and allegorical communications". I may have bought this line of reasoning if it had been one or two lies. But in the case of Gore, it's happened so often I believe it's pathological.<<< OK, do a gravity comparison. How many public statements has Gore made? How many has Bush made? Are you saying GOPwinger strategists were smart enough to put up a candidate with a thin public record such that the candidate could not get trapped in misstatements? I bet if you compare the two candidates years of service and number of public statements made, the scale would show that Gore has made fewer misstatements than Bush. When it comes to public service, Bush is a short-timer; Gore is long. >>>Think about it...He knew he was on the hook in regard to embellishing the truth, and yet was unable to prevent himself from lying repeatedly during the debate.<<< I bet if you, in the company of an academic behavioral historian, were to review and dissect what's been claimed as "lies," you'd be surprised at how far this definition has been GOPwing stretched. "Lies" is nothing but a keyword, a pat line, as passed along in Republican talking point strategies. >>>And certainly not one I would trust with America's nuclear codes.<<< You'd rather put the nuclear codes in the hands of someone not willing to admit what they did before the age of 40? OK. But please take this humble request from me and all non-GOPwing Americans: Don't do that! >>>Secondly, John McCain was a good person who seriously mishandled his election process. He focused way too much on campaign finance reform. A reform, that if passed, would never have held up at the Supreme Court. Limiting free speech, by giving it all to the mainstream media, would have been a disaster for third party nominees and conservatives.<<< When has it never been a "disaster for third party nominees?" Whose the other group you mentioned. Yes, conservatives? Hey, I thought free speech was for everybody, regardless of whether a conservative thinker, or not. And you know what? Conservatives sometimes hold on to old ideas which likely originated as liberal ideas, but have changed over time. So before you condemn liberal thinkers, consider the ideas which you now espouse may have, in an earlier stage of thought and development, been a liberal idea. It all depends on your view of history and what you determine as a liberal or a conservative.<<< >>>The last thing we need to do is give more power to the mainstream media. McCain/Feingold is simply that. A power grab by the mainstream media. And it's the primary reason they gave him so much positive news coverage during the primaries.<<< No. McCain earned his coverage in the media. Remember how quick you guys are to prop up Colin Powell? McCain's experience was deeper, wiser and more comprehensive than was George W. Bush's. McCain deserved every bit of media attention he gained during his campaign. >>>Bush better managed and executed his election run. And he posted every one of his contributions on his website. Those contributions stand in stark contrast to your analysis of fat-cats being the only supporters of his campaign.<<< Were I you, I'd rethink this. On the other hand, Gore never has shown us a detailed breakdown of his contributors. Which I have little doubt include big labor, big environmental zealots, and big lawyers. He's the antithesis of the "big and powerful against the people". He represents the big and powerful government lobby groups. Who's sole goal is to strip individual liberty from Americans. And replace it with an all powerful central governmental role in our lives.