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: Srexley who wrote (522558)	1/11/2004 10:58:57 PM
From: Rick McDougall	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

<Your intellect far surpasses the combo of Bush, Rice, Powell, Wolfowitz, Cheney and the rest, I am sure.>......I've got pet rocks whose intellect surpasses the sum of the aforementioned quintet.

To: Srexley who wrote (522558)	1/12/2004 12:11:07 PM
From: SilentZ	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

>Don't care that you don't buy it. And not surprised that you cannot state why you don't buy it. Why don't I buy it? Because the assumption that Saddam Hussein, just because he's a bad guy, might slip weapons into a different bad guy's hands when we have no real indication that he's attempting to do so is no justification for war to me. >I'm glad that a kid like you knows more about our "precious resources" than the guys in charge. How old did you say you were? 20? Sure wish you were in charge. Your intellect far surpasses the combo of Bush, Rice, Powell, Wolfowitz, Cheney and the rest, I am sure. 24. Not that that's particularly relevant. I'm 24 and I'm running a small company, am well-read, and have learned a lot, and have been right a lot along the way. I certainly trust myself. I surely reserve the right to be wrong, though. >After our troops demonstrated the awesome capabilities of the United States and we took control of Iraq in a matter of weeks (while the dems and liberal press were saying that we were losing), I think a thank you to the troops and stating that the "main combat operations" were over (which they were) was well in order. That it infuriates you haters is more telling than the fact that there would be more work to be done. I never said we were losing. I've said from the beginning that between the war and its aftermath we'd lose under 1000 troops. Seems about right. The issue is not what happens when we're there. The issue is about what happens when we leave if we don't stay long enough. >When you have to lie to make your point it should trouble you. He has said the war on terror would be a long operation from the very beginning. I agree that he's said the war on terror would be a long operation from the beginning. He did not, however, say that the operation in Iraq would be. >Or as you say put more of our "precious resources" in a country we have already liberated is ridiculous. Who ran on an anti-interventionist platform? Bush. Bush. Bush. Who was planning the Iraq war since his inauguration? Bush. >No it isn't. That you think it is tells much about your level of intellect. How do you suggest that all considerations in a world wide war that may take 10 to 15 years to win could be predicted accurately? You know that it could not, so you lie that it could. Possible that you are so stupid that you think this could be predicted, but the fact that you can type indicates you probably know that it cannot. The reasons the dems wanted him to predict is so they could say he was wrong. The reason they criticize for him not doing it is because they are assholes (the ones that do say it could have been anyway). Of course one can't predict an exact amount, but it's not too much to ask for a ballpark amount -- hundreds of millions, billions, tens of billions, hundreds of billions... from the language being used prior to the war on Iraq, you wouldn't have guessed anywhere near $87 billion. Besides, what changed that much between March 2003 and summer (July?) 2003 that it became that much easier for the administration to estimate? Very little. >"I disagree (that hard work and education allows you to prosper in America). Way to put words into my mouth. Obviously I don't disagree that hard work and education allows you to prosper in America. It helps a lot! What I disagree with is that the government shouldn't look to provide jobs to people. Sure it should, as long as those jobs serve a purpose. >Only the doubters and haters of America can say that the picture isn't very good. I wish I could convince more people to abandon the this place sucks attitude, but many are of this mindset, and they pay the price with their own misery. Live in another country if you don't like your prospects here. That way we will have a higher percentage of doers and positive people, and you can bring down the psyche and drain resources from another country. Nice try. The picture isn't great here. Of course, it's still the greatest country in the world. Could be better. -Z