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: SilentZ who wrote (181959)	1/31/2004 7:35:17 PM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1576615

Trust me, the degree of anger felt by those opposed to Bush is very new. I suggest you might be making a big mistake thinking its business as usual. I agree. I didn't vote in 2000 (which I vastly regret, but I was only 20 and was worried more about my midterms at the time than about the elections). If I had, I likely would've voted for Bush. Not based so much on platforms, but until 2002, I fancied myself a Republican ('cause in Albany, NY, EVERYONE'S a Democrat, and I always liked being the one Republican in the room). Up til now, I thought your lack of facileness was one of your strong suits! Who knew? LOL! I was watching the SoU address the other night, however, and realized that this was the first year that I had a solid understanding of all of the issues that the President was discussing, and I found myself wholeheartedly disagreeing with his stances on every single one! One of the little known policy changes that Bush made almost immediately upon entering the WH was changing the level of allowable arsenic in the water back to 50 parts from 10 parts. I was stunned at the arbitrary manner in which this done. After 4 years of intensive study under Clinton, the law had been changed to the ten parts because it was determined that arsenic even under low levels is dangerous to humans. Initially, low levels of arsenic can cause crusty rashes on one's palms and on the bottom of one's feet. Eventually, it causes a particular kind of cancer and you die. The fact that Bush changed the law so casually gave us a good indication of the kind of presidency this was going to be! BTW, there was a loud outcry and Bush was forced to change the law back to ten parts. I had an intense dislike for the Clinton administration right on through. I rooted for Bush against him in '92, Dole against him in '96. However, now that I look back, I appreciate him, because I agreed with many of his policies. I liked Clinton because he tackled issues like welfare rolls that no other president bothered to do previously. Its too bad he mucked it up with the Monica affair........he was a decent president. ted My anger against the Bush administration has been generated by its policies and practices, and not by something irrational (as my distaste for Clinton). The Democrats around me in Albany did not dislike Bush in 2000, but they most certainly do these days. The country is SOOOOO polarized now. The incumbency could prove to be a weakness this time around. -Z