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: jlallen who wrote (541328)	2/17/2004 10:50:59 AM
From: E	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 769670

Well, in shorthand and just as an indication: judicial nominations including Supreme Court, concern for the Constitution including regarding the Patriot act and its implications and also the bizarro implication that the threat to our society of gay couples getting married is so important that prohibiting it might warrant an actual constitutional amendment (what might, next, I wonder?), the ballooning deficit, Ashcroft and his intrusive agenda, dismantling of environmental protections, the contempt and hostility toward us of large bodies of formerly friendly people overseas (putting aside what their governments think), and various aspects of the Iraq adventure. Not to mention that as a person, a mind, he seems quite alarmingly limited and therefore a mere figurehead for individuals we didn't elect. I won't even comment on the way he himself got elected. And there are little, miscellaneous things. Certain image-management policies disturb me...for example, that he doesn't attend a single funeral for our war dead (has any war president ever not gone to a single funeral for our dead?) and that the media are prohibited from covering the arrival home of caskets. And we don't keep an official count of Iraqi civilian dead. (How can the question "Was it worth it?" be answered in ignorance of that number?) (Have we ever before been in a war in which we didn't count dead civilians?) It's not that I don't understand why his people made those policies, I do. Which is the problem. It's a bit too George Orwell for my stomach. Similarly, I find it extremely odd for the president to acknowledge that the WMD he expected to find were not in fact there, and then show no hint of chagrin, and not a touch of reprimand, toward the intelligence bodies that had supplied him with incorrect information. There is something out of the ordinary about his performance there. I don't plan to argue about all this. But you asked, and I wanted to answer as best I could in a few minutes.