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.

Technology Stocks : Amazon.com, Inc. (AMZN) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: fedhead who wrote (159904)	1/19/2004 7:40:34 PM
From: Alomex	Respond to of 164684

I don't get it , why are republicans so enamored of Bush who has pretty much given their core principles the shaft all in a cynical bid to get reelected. It seems incredible to me that Bush's poll numbers are so high. That is a question for the ages. The party that used to stand for financial probity is now spending money like "drunken sailors". Who said that? Republican senator John McCain, no less.

To: fedhead who wrote (159904)	1/19/2004 7:49:05 PM
From: GST	Respond to of 164684

Bush taps an emotion that resonates with many people. Americans want a strong country. For some, our military represents our strength. When we bomb somebody, we feel strong. We couldn't bomb al Qaida (in Afghanistan, we ran out of targets to bomb in short order), so we bombed Iraq. Now we "own" Iraq -- and we find out that owning Iraq means we watch our children die on the streets of Iraq while people chant Yankee go home. The emptiness of this "victory" has not yet sunk in for the majority of Americans, but Bush is running out of Iraq as fast as he can before people realize how meaningless our "victory" was in terms of national security or anything else for that matter. The Bush supporters deeply resent the idea that bombing our way into Iraq was anything less than glorious. Do you support the invasion? Sure, send my neighbors' children over there to die. On the economy, so long as people are receiving tax refunds they will not think too much about the consequences, despite the sky-high concern over the economy and health care, both of which are likely to be hobbled by sky-high deficits. The people who support Bush don't want to know about any of this -- we bombed our way into Iraq and they are feeling pretty good about themselves and our their favorite politicians, despite the sleazy lying that was used as a pretext. They have no shame. Integrity is not a concern for Republicans. They attack democratic integrity at every opportunity because they know those bleeding hearts care about integrity. Republicans just want to win, no matter what sleazy, lying doubletalk is required. On the economy, this is not a concern so long as people with money are first in line when Bush is handing-out the money. The consequences don't exist in their minds. Go to mars? Sure, what the hell. Why not. Send the bill to my neighbors' children. All Bush has to do to get re-elected is find enough people who are so poorly informed, selfish, short-sighted and sufficiently insecure about the strength of America that they will buy the idea that invading Iraq and defying the world is a sign of inherent strength and moral superiority, and that government finances are so big and complex that there is no limit to the publicly-funded gifts that can be showered on the American people. George Bush -- Santa Claus with smart bombs and a swagger, what's not to like?

To: fedhead who wrote (159904)	1/19/2004 8:20:31 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164684

1) Iraq was a **** up. 2) His predecessor presided over a greater bubble than the 1920s. We're lucky it isn't worse. So are you ready to criticize Slick Willie for cheering on irrational exuberance? If you are, I might be willing to believe you're honest. How about AG? He's the guy that started raising interest rates and got the slide started. 3) I can prove that statement clearly and unequivocally WRONG. I've got to find the sources on another computer. 4) No question. His "This is the last amnesty- -again" cost my vote. Enough! You're worrying about deficits to this point? What do you think will happen when that prescription drug bill kicks in? All to win the Hispanic and Senior vote. BTW, who said I wanted to re-elect him? If the Dems give me a decent alternative, I'll take it. They haven't so far. It's tweedle-Marx and tweedle-Lenin. My likeliest vote is Libertarian. His offenses are far more serious than someone dropping their pants in the oval office. FYI, Clinton was impeached for perjury, not sex offenses. And he committed perjury. He admitted it. Perjury qualifies under "high crimes and misdemeanors" in the impeachment clause. America cannot afford 4 more years of Bush. So who do you suggest? I see no better among the Dems. I don't get it , why are republicans so enamored of Bush who has pretty much given their core principles the shaft all in a cynical bid to get reelected. Nolo contendre. It seems incredible to me that Bush's poll numbers are so high. It's the economy, stupid! As Slick said. It is in fact improving. As of now. Whether that will hold to November is a whole 'nuther question. I'm not betting it will. If you have to try this hard (record low interest rates, big tax breaks) to get this little response, you got a problem. OTOH, there was that '90s bubble that burst. I KNOW the Dems want to blame this all on Bush, but the facts are that the burst and economic slide started on Slick's watch. If you want to blame economics on Presidents. Personally, I think it's a whole lot more complicated than that, but if they want to point to Bush, then I'll point right back to Slick. That is where it started.

To: fedhead who wrote (159904)	1/19/2004 8:26:12 PM
From: Lizzie Tudor	Respond to of 164684

polls don't work in angry environments like this. Remember the polls were saying the Arnold vote in CA was tied with Gray Davis, polls can't gauge anger. I see CNN is predicting double the voters in the Iowa caucuses from the 2000 vote. Double voters = a lot of angry people very concerned about things. Thats the way it is, anger brings out the voters. All the candidates are adopting the Howard Dean stance against the war and Bush policies now in a sort of open defiance and that has caused Dean's numbers to fall. The good thing about huge voter turnout primaries is that by definition you get a mainstream winner. The more voters, the more the winner is likely to win in a general election vs. the way the republicans are painting things (Dean can't win, etc).