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: TimF who wrote (184817)	3/15/2004 10:16:07 PM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1575354

You are mistaking my anger for partisanship. Partisanship motivated by anger is still partisanship. Which as I said isn't necessarily wrong (if you honestly see one party as being significantly worse then the other then you should be partisanly against it) but it should be recognized for what it is. Partisanship is when you disagree with the policies of a party simply because you don't like the party and not its policies. Like I've said before, the Rep. mayor of LA had my full support. He did not do everything to my liking but no one does. However, his policies made sense and were logical and they fit the times perfectly. I could vote for him and support him even though he was a Rep. On the other hand, I could never vote or support a Jesse Jackson or an Al Sharpton. Its why I am independent. I can't vote the party line just because its the party line. So one again, my reaction to Bush and the GOP is based on his/its current policies and not because they are Reps. You forget I may be a liberal but I am also a fiscal conservative. There is nothing more disturbing to a fiscal conservative than to watch someone pork out at the trough without any constraint. This has been happening fairly consistently since at least the great society but really since the New Deal. There are varying levels of porking. At least some presidents make an effort to cut back the fat and reduce the deficit. Bush is not making any attempts along those lines. It is your partisanship that refuses to call a spade a spade. Bush is a good example of someone who spends to much but most of the governments in modern American history haven't thought much about spending a lot more and in general expanding government. Clinton had an interesting twist on this in that, at least after the Republicans took control of congress, he didn't expand spending as much as Bush is now but he instead expanded regulations forcing businesses and to an extent state and local governments to spend in the areas were he wanted resources to be spent. The bottom line with Clinton is that the deficit when down. You can try to credit the GOP controlled Congress but then, that's what we have now and spending is going up. Therefore, its pretty safe to deduce that the reduction in the deficit had more to do with Clinton than the GOP. When Al complained about the wasteful spending, you went on this long winded [defensive] explanation trying to show that Bush's spending wasn't all that bad [in comparison to the spending during WW II You don't really seem to pay much attention to what I post. I wasn't talking about spending at all but rather government debt levels and how sustainable they where. Debt levels are determined by the level of spending. Well, what do you call people who go to war under false pretenses; who say a budget item will cost one number and then when its passed by Congress go "Oops, I bad......its going to cost a lot more" Bush apparently has learned from the Dems, which is not something that should make one feel proud of him. Social Security, Medicate ect. where all supposed to cost far less then they did even after just a few years. Let me remind you that since WW II, debt went down under the Dems and has increased dramatically under Reagan and Bush. or who claim the CIA mislead them re. Iraq when it turns out they bypassed the CIA completely? I don't think that statement is accurate. To give you an update, the Bushies claimed that the CIA mislead them about Iraq. Last week, Tenet testified under oath that was not true; that Cheney had his own contacts at the Pentagon and used them to make his determination about the war. The WH has not refuted his claim. Bottom line: More double talk from this administration. It seems to be a common malaise among hawks. There is a lesson to be learned from the demise of Anzar's party. If you want to defend these charlatans, be my guest but don't turn around and call me partisan. If you want to call me partisan for defending them then go ahead but your pattern of attacking them shows obvious partisan bias. Of course if all your attacks where correct then perhaps you should be partisan but you shouldn't claim not to be partisan. Most of my defenses are responses to inaccurate attacks. If everyone here was posting about how Bush had kept such a tight lid on spending I would be responding to that inaccurate statement. The Bush administration has a number or real imperfections and problems. But the best way to deal with them is not to exaggerate the real problems and then go on to make up more. They may be exaggerations by your standards but not mine. I can't prove things to the degree you want or expect. I don't have that power. Therefore, I have to get as many of the facts as possible and then come to a conclusion. Because my processing of info is not like yours does not make me partisan. I'll say what I don't like about Bush - He spends far too much, he isn't as committed to free trade and reducing regulation as I would like, and his administration is a bit to secretive. I could think of other things if I cared to make the effort but those are the big things. Now if you are really so non-partisan there must be some things about the Bush administration that you life, even if they are overshadowed by the faults. He isn't Hitler, or bin Laden or the devil. What do you like about Bush or his administration. What have they done well? I am sad to say there is very little that I like. He is a disappointment on many levels........politically, diplomatically, spending wise, environmentally etc. I don't think they are the right people for the times. Occasionally, they do something that I see as positive but its rare. By your standards that makes me partisan but frankly I think you are taking the easy way out on this issue. ted