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: ColtonGang who wrote (45371)	10/12/2000 11:24:45 AM
From: microhoogle!	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 769667

This is one of the post that a foreigner posted on CNN board. This is a general perception of all foreigners and how closely her views resemble my views. But general opinion on this board would be who cares what the foreigners think <g> BTW: IMO, Dubya did a decent job at debate last night. katharine lee - Thursday, 10/12/00, 11:16:49am (#203655 of 203659) As a Brit studying in America I am stunned and horrified that George W. Bush is a serious candidate for the U.S. Presidency. To be perfectly honest,(and I am not proud of the fact), many Europeans tend to flippantly stereotype Americans as not being very intelligent. Admittedly, this may be due to a certain resentment of American power and wealth. If, however, George W. Bush is elected as President I am afraid that this will confirm what many Europeans have hoped to be the case all along. I have followed the Presidential debates and campaigns and cannot understand how George W. Bush has been propped up by the media as a serious candidate. His very dubious personal record not only in Texas but throughout his entire life and his simultaneously fluctuating and vague stance on major issues in combination with his sadly deficient knowledge on even the most general of topics is an embarrassment to the Republican Party. Even if one agrees with reversing Roe vs Wade or even if one thinks that we ought to heavily discount future generations by letting the environment deteriorate or if one is as socially irresponsible to believe that one percent of the population is far more important than the rest,etc. one ought to be reluctant to vote in a man who is clearly ignorant and not particulary intelligent to lead and represent one's country. The President of the United States is the face of America to the rest of the world. Who would you rather have to represent your country? Someone who is articulate and intelligent and has a great grasp of both domestic and foreign affairs? Or someone who has spent his adulthood until the age of forty quite frivolously, who obviously lacks natural talents and has failed to supplement this deficiency by a depth of knowledge of the world beyond his own social circles and whose only credentials seem to stem from the fact that he is the former President Bush's son? It appears to me that the choice should be obvious. Yet so many Americans seem to be either too partisan or brainwashed by the strangely biased media to see George W. Bush as the ridiculous figure that he really is

To: ColtonGang who wrote (45371)	10/12/2000 11:34:14 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769667

Chapman makes some good points, although he also perpetuates some falsehoods. For example, it is pretty well established that Ted Sorenson ghost-wrote "Profiles in Courage", and that Kennedy's image as a cultured fellow was bogus. Reagan was actually a very good student, both in high school and college, much smarter than people generally realized, and Eisenhower did pretty well at West Point. Although Clinton is a Rhodes Scholar, the scholarship is mainly awarded on the basis of the interview, which favors schmoozers, and there are some states, like Arkansas, where competition is not that stiff. BTW, I did better than either candidate on the SATs. I am not that impressed with Gore, and Bush is actually a smart guy.......