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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: i-node who wrote (142807)	2/20/2002 1:36:25 AM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1577019

Which do you respond to -- talk, or action? We had eight years of slick talk. It got us nowhere. Maybe it got you no where but I was making more $$$ than I am now.....its the economy..... We are now in the midst of a foreign policy crisis made worse by the previous administration. Which was worsened by the Bush Sr administration. So what? How does that cause Bush jr. to get tongue tied or confused in his wording? We are now in the midst of a recession that began under the previous administration. And, as a nation, we are still reeling from the parade of eight years of Democrat scandal. Only you are reeling, the rest of us are fine.

To: i-node who wrote (142807)	2/20/2002 1:44:24 AM
From: tejek	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1577019

The simple truth is that Bush is not a great speaker. Isn't that what I said? But it is clear that he is a first-rate thinker, first-rate manager, and has an excellent skill set for the job he was elected to do. Sorry, but I can't take your word for it......I have not yet seen those attributes manifested. He sounds more like a product of group think rather than of his own thinking. But he isn't slick. I don't disagree. I might add, Clinton was no great speaker, either -- the main attributes of his speech were slickness and the ability to drone on for hours. Further, Bush's opponent was apparently a less-than-impressive speaker -- he clearly lost the debates. The difference is that Clinton sounded like he knew what he was talking about, Bush does not. I know it difficult for you to comprehend, but you have been gullible for eight years. Gullible? I don't think so......I was living in LA for many of those 8 years. If you are gullible in LA, you die! Its that kind of town. Now, instead of a list of empty promises, we're getting reality. The empty promises are your imagination.......the reality is we had an economy ramping on all cylinders. I can't blame the recession on Bush but I don't count on him getting us out of it either. Making war seems to be what the Bushes do best.

To: i-node who wrote (142807)	2/20/2002 3:36:50 AM
From: Mani1	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1577019

David, It seems that half your sentences contains statements like: clearly....It is intuitively obvious to an idiot ....it difficult for you to comprehend...The fact that... A person has either got to be blind or stupid not to realize this...it is clear... The funny thing is I agree with what you say more often than I agree with Ted, but I find it interesting that you seem to often resort to "absolute" rhetoric. One issue that I often have with ultra conservatives is that they usually think everything is so absolute and binary. They often think that everything is so black and white that they refuse to explore something in between. I stopped listening to Rush when I noticed he often talked about subject that he knew little about with complete (false) authority and considered arguable positions as facts. I do not agree with most of Ted's view but unlike you he does not imply that if you disagree with him you must be stupid or you think 2+2=5. Mani