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 : Impeach George W. Bush -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: portage who wrote (9122)	1/3/2002 12:51:54 AM
From: Mephisto	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 93284

Let's Roll " And now, I wish Al Gore were president." January 2, 2002 The New York Times By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN A ll hail to President Bush for how he has conducted the war against Osama bin Laden. Mr. Bush has emerged a far better commander in chief than anyone predicted. In the war on terrorism he has shown steely resolve, imagination, leadership and creativity. Thank you, Mr. Bush. And now, I wish Al Gore were president. Why? Quite simply because instead of showing resolve, imagination, leadership and creativity on the domestic front, Mr. Bush has done just the opposite. He has tried to use the tremendous upsurge in patriotism, bipartisanship and volunteerism triggered by the tragedy of Sept. 11 to drive a narrow, right-wing agenda from Sept. 10 into a Sept. 12 world. It's wrong. It won't work. It sells the country short and it will ultimately sell the Bush presidency short. I have no problem with nation- building in Afghanistan, but what I'm really interested in is nation- building in America - using the power of Sept. 11 to make our country stronger, safer and a better global citizen in the world of Sept. 12, beginning with how we use energy. But so far, all that's happening is that we've made the world safer for Saudi Arabia and OPEC to raise oil prices again. In case you missed it, last Friday the Saudi-led cartel cut production by 6.5 percent to boost oil prices, while the world is struggling to get out of a recession induced in part by the terrorism of Osama bin Laden and 15 Saudi hijackers. Frankly, the thought that U.S. taxpayers, who have had to bail out the airline industry (which was devastated by Sept. 11 and by higher gas prices) and to finance the $1 billion-a- month war against bin Laden, will now have to pay more for oil because the Middle East regimes we're protecting want to hike the price, is an outrage. You'd think maybe the king of Saudi Arabia would say: "America, we're as upset as you that Osama bin Laden and 15 Saudi youth were involved in the terrible attack on your shores. So we want to help America - the engine of the global economy - recover, as well as the developing world. As such, we're going to keep oil prices extremely low for the next six months, then we'll slowly lift them back to the $24-$28 range. It will cost us, but that's our tax cut for the world." Is that too much to ask? Well, it seems so - which leads me back to President Bush. The most obvious bold national project that Mr. Bush could launch now - his version of the race to the moon - would be a program for energy independence, based on developing renewable resources, domestic production and energy efficiency. Not only would every school kid in America be excited by such a project, but it also would be Mr. Bush's equivalent of Richard Nixon going to China - the Texas oilman weaning America off of its dependence on Middle East oil. That would be a political coup! It would also be Mr. Bush's best response to foreigners who are enraged by America's refusal to join the Kyoto treaty to stop global warming. Mr. Bush could say that by weaning America away from oil gluttony he would be doing more for the environment than Kyoto ever would, which would greatly improve America's standing as a global good citizen. There are lots of ways Mr. Bush could go. "Today one out of every seven barrels of oil produced in the world is consumed on American highways," says the respected oil consultant Philip Verleger. "We could cut that by a third in five years if Washington were to offer tax incentives for manufacturers to produce more efficient vehicles and for consumers to buy them. Such tax cuts could be paid for with a higher gas tax, gradually phased in. Then we could replace all those American flag bumper stickers with ones that read: `I cut my oil use by a third, how about you?' " I don't want to be dependent on Mideast oil anymore. Countries in that region haven't had a good century in 700 years - and they're not going to soon. Oil is their curse, as well as ours. It's corrupted their rulers, enabled them to keep their women backward and out of the work force, and prevented them from developing innovative economies that make things instead of just take things from the ground. They have a lot of homework to do before they will be stable allies. We will all benefit if they succeed, but for now we have to look after ourselves. So, Mr. Bush, "Let's roll." Ultimately, presidential greatness is measured by what you do at home. If this war on terrorism ends with nation-building only in Afghanistan and not in America, it will be no victory at all. nytimes.com

To: portage who wrote (9122)	1/3/2002 8:25:33 AM
From: Zoltan!	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93284

>>Aside from the fact that the recount had Gore winning FL statewide No recount had Gore winning. None. Even the NYTimes admitted that. Importantly, the consortium confirmed that AlGore lost even if he had managed his illegal counting scheme - however that discounts the continuing fraud the Dems were capable of doing had Dem committees continued to divine votes out of ether. While neither Bush or Gore got a majority of the vote, both did better than Clinton did in his two minority vote presidencies. More importantly, Bush would defeat Gore 2-1 today and only 22% of Dems want the loser as their designated loser in 2004. Clinton never so dominated, he always was focusing on re-election because he never was a commanding figure and was always disliked by a majority. Nixon is now seen as a more honest, trustworthy man. >>The issue that will dominate the next few years (barring suitcase nukes from the terrorists There are no suitcase nukes. There are dirty bombs capable are being hidden in suitcases. >> will be the continuing shocks and surprises of a false economic recovery, and eventually Curious George will take the rap. Gallup/USAToday says the US blames Clinton, after all Clinton inherited a boom - (almost two years old when Clinton lied his way into and first disgraced office) - and left the economic mess. 66% blame Clinton for the recession, 44% say Bush shares some blame - far less the the 70+% that blame Congress in part - no doubt due to Daschle. So, it's basically the GOP and Independents against the ignorant partisan Dems. >>The realization that a stealthy class warfare has been invoked by the elites upon the average American will solidify, culminating in the election of a government finally responsive to the average American, not the elite tricksters Agreed, that's why the people are moving against the Dem class warfare tricksters to the GOP: Mean-spirited Senate plurality leader Daschle and his Taliban Dems are being relegated to the fringe, where they always existed. The Clinton-Daschle Recession is something they cannot shrug off: ...In a recent Gallup/USA Today poll, 44 percent of respondents said they preferred Republicans to deal with the recession over Democrats, who received 35 percent of the vote. In a similar Fox/Opinion Dynamics poll, that number was 40-29 in favor of Republicans.... foxnews.com And just wait until voters find out that the Dems want to raise taxes to pay off the special interests that own the Dems. As for the rest of your nonsense, you appear proud to be invincibly ignorant. Some day you may aspire to be merely ignorant.