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 : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Original Mad Dog who wrote (5390)	3/15/2004 4:31:37 PM
From: rrufff	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

OMD - that's the very frustrating part of trying to have an honest debate. So far, Kerry has done very little except basically be an anti-Bush attack dog. He was successful in the primaries and so far has been successful against the President, but the voters will demand more to vote against the incumbent. To be objective, the Bush people have done a pretty good job of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. What should have been an extremely strong suit (anti-terror) is being played by these conspiracy nuts because of the inability of politcians to quite simply say they were wrong (WMD), and that they made honest mistakes. Whether it's Clinton, Nixon or Bush, they don't learn. We are a forgiving people. We hate BS and we hate hypocrisy. We would have supported Bush if he quite simply said - our intelligence is screwed up, the buck stops here, but I'd do it again because I saved perhaps 100's of thousands from death, rape, torture, etc., at the hands of Saddam. Further, the Bush extreme religious fanatics are turning many middle and undecided people away by interfering with, e.g. stem cell research and with lifestyles and obscenity (forget the steroid issue, that's even more ridiculous to worry about these guys making $100,000 per at bat.) However, the Bush campaign may luck out because Kerry seems unable to get out of his way and deliver strong detailed alternatives that can be embraced by the voter. I think we finally see through the "we are going to roll back the tax cuts for the super wealthy." It follows a very familiar pattern. That is, when politicians say, "tax simplification, rollback, adjustment, rebalance, etc., etc.," it means "grab your wallet." I think most of us now that when a politician wants to raise taxes on the "super wealthy," he defines that term as you and me and everyone else who has to bust his hump to support his family and that person on government benefits or that government employee that should be my dependent.

To: Original Mad Dog who wrote (5390)	3/15/2004 7:32:28 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Respond to of 90947

1. You greedy Bushistas should consider yourselves lucky we allow to you to continue polluting this beautiful landscape with your presence, rather than deporting you to Iraq for target practice by our soldiers. Wait a minute. That didn't come out right. Shut up and pay. How's that? 2. You Bushistas should consider yourselves lucky we don't force you to marry liberals. Wait a minute. That didn't come out right. Shut up and pay. How's that? 3. No. Shut up and pay. How's that?