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.

Pastimes : Home on the range where the buffalo roam -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: stockman_scott who wrote (9333)	10/8/2002 1:44:04 PM
From: Selectric II	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13815

That editorial throws out hooey about a lot of things, simply to try to make Bush look bad. Fact is, Daschole and the Democrats don't want a recovery before the election, and have done everything they can to prevent one, from holding up legislation (when did stock options even become an issue? -- not until looong after they were abused under Clinton's bubble), to e.g. their labor cronies on the West Coast causing a port work slowdown by unions whose members make over $100k a year. The West Coast port problem costs $1 billion a day -- more than three times as much as that LA Times editorial's projected war costs. Who's been complaining about the ILWU's greed? Certainly not the LA Times, I'd guess. And the fear/threat of oil spikes, Middle East chaos, etc. if we take action in Iraq, are the same old songs sung every time we consider taking decisive action against Saddam, including in Kuwait in '91. Didn't and won't happen with anything more than a short blip that will be more than offset by the benefits of a free and neighbor-friendly Iraq. Using the left-wing's current analysis and standards, Kennedy was not only wrong to have blockaded Cuba because there was no "imminent threat," but he also caused the Cuban Missile Crisis.