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 : Don't Blame Me, I Voted For Kerry -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (5545)	3/7/2004 7:35:15 PM
From: jlallen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 81568

Why can't you just admit Bush is a failure. He probably defines "failure" in a different manner than you do....for instance, given your support for BJ BillyBubba in the face of poverwhelming evidence that he was a lying scumbag....how could anyone really put any credence in your postings on such matters as this...???

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (5545)	3/7/2004 8:06:57 PM
From: CalculatedRisk	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 81568

Battleground States: That is an interesting list by Dimrock, but I would change it a little bit, I would add Nevada. Bush won Nevada in 2000, but right now, due to a strong environmental movement and opposition to Yucca Mountain, Kerry is leading in the polls. I would also consider Arizona and Colorado! Both of these typically Republican states are polling OK for Kerry (especially Arizona). I would remove Tennessee and Louisiana. Not that Kerry shouldn't try, but if he carries either of these states it would be a landslide!

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (5545)	3/8/2004 1:19:25 AM
From: Oeconomicus	Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 81568

You're too much Buschman. Doesn't look like these states are solidly Bush to me... I'm "too much" because I cite a reputable polling organization that says Bush has a wide margin in the "red states"? And your response is that it "doesn't look like" that to you? Try citing a poll that contradicts Zogby, Dizzie, or are you allergic to factual evidence? due to the offshoring I told you about two years ago which you dismissed... I "dismissed" it? Oh? No, Diz, I've said 1) that you've provided no empirical evidence that it is the HUMONGOUS economic problem you make it out to be; 2) that it is not a phenomenon of the Bush administration i) "offshoring" of tech work has been going on for at least five years now (it boomed when you and your co-workers were demanding absurd salaries, truckloads of options and catered lunches all over Silly Valley) and ii) it is no different for technology workers and others currently suffering from "offshoring" than for auto workers of the '70s and '80s, textile workers of the same period, and workers in any number of other industries or functions where foreign competition has grown; and 3) that you have yet to suggest a workable solution to this supposedly devastating development. In short, you are bitching about an economic phenomenon that is nothing new and is simply an economic fact of life for any country that wants to continue to enjoy the benefits of relatively free trade (i.e. the high standard of living free trade makes possible). I'm sure you are equally outraged over cheap, high-quality TVs, computers, cars, fresh fruits and vegetables, clothing and all the other things you enjoy every day that come from other nations, but were once dominated by American producers and their workers. And then we have the social security ... problem with Bush fiscal mismanagement ... Oh, Bush has now "fiscally mismanaged" social security? This could be a hoot - please explain that one, Diz.