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: hmaly who wrote (181534)	1/25/2004 6:06:01 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574106

Ted Re...I am looking forward to the link you are going to provide supporting your claim above. You know as well as I SI doesn't go back 2 yrs, with their posts. However Tim,Al; Mani,or Tench can verify what I said. I'm waiting for them to confirm your statement. BTW its been just a little over two years since 9/11.....plus the posts go back more than 2 years so I don't know what you mean by a two year cutoff. I was not talking about winning or losing. I was talking about his mandate or the lack there of. Do you know the difference? Really. Here is your post. Tell me where you say GW won the presidency, anywhere in it. Huh? Let me try this one more time. He did not have a clear mandate. I wasn't talking about winning or losing. He did not win the most popular votes and yet he and his minions and his supporters act like he won by the largest plurality in the history of the US and do what they damn please whether it pisses off half the country or not. Secondly, your contention that GW didn't have a mandate, is ridiculous. When you win the presidency, you automatically have a mandate to perform the duties of that office, which is to take command of the executive branch of gov., whether you have a one, 5, 10 or 50 electoral vote margin of victory. Legally, you're right; however, the reality is he did not have the backing of even half the country and he did not win the popular vote. A president who wants to be successful in his tenure needs to recognize that fact and act accordingly. Instead, Bush played fast and lose on his own track. Can he be impeached for it? No! Did he commit a crime? No! But he didn't do what was best for a divided nation. I do not accept Bush as my president because of the way he and his cronies handled the FLA elections and their dramatic run to the Sup. Court/daddy. Oh boo hoo, cry me up a storm. Do you really think your silliness bothers me? I can't wait to see history's view of the 2000 election.......and their judgement of Bush's actions. It takes someone arrogant to act like he has a clear mandate when he doesn't. LOL No wonder all of the dem. presidents lately, Bill and Jimmy have been such wusses. They both had a mandate, and didn't know enough to use it. That is your problem, not GW's. Get over yourself..........Clinton had the most successful presidency since FDR. The GOP has had its chance and can't even do half the job Slick Willie did and they control everything. You all need to take lessons!