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: Peter O'Brien who wrote (508956)	12/13/2003 6:05:16 PM
From: Lizzie Tudor	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

It was my error to allow you to use the typical debate "tactic" of changing direction or focussing on some irrelevant part of the issue in order to detract from the larger point. This is what you tried to to by bringing up FDR. There are a whole host of issues that make FDR a worthless comparison to Bush, not the least of which is the fact that he served so long. But at any rate this is all irrelevant, because even taking the extreme circumstances of an FDR presidency into account, he still didn't spend as much as Bush in such a small amount of time. My dismissal of your argument with a "whatever" was not to say that I agree that FDR was more fiscally irresponsible than Bush. I do not think that, and I don't think anybody else thinks it either. You rarely hear FDRs term mentioned as one of reckless spending. I know the right wing would LIKE to portray him that way as a means to divert attention away from Bush, but it won't work. We are discussing Bush, Bush's spending and where we are as a nation thanks to BUSH. This "discussion" reminds me of other right wing threads, where they dispute obvious, overreported FACTS such as job loss under Bush, and try to argue about the reality. I am not interested in the basic argument as to whether Bush is a fiscal disaster. He is that. Period.