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 : Moderate Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TigerPaw who wrote (10210)	5/7/2004 12:16:11 PM
From: rrufff	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20773

There were some of the same characters no doubt, but is that a surprise given that we were silly enough to elect a son, largely as a reaction to feeling sorry for not re-electing the father and getting Clinton and the poontang follies. Again, I liked Clinton and I'm not bashing him. I also recognize that the election was 50-50 and really a selection. But I was shocked that Bush got 50% of the vote. Irrespective of all that, the fact is we have a father - son Presidency and many of the same players would be involved no matter what. It's no surprise, no big conspiracy. I've studied sub-terranean world of government in various nations, including the US, and this type of thing did not start in Bush I or in RR's term. It has been in existence in various forms during democractic administrations as well. Most of it is incompetence (the leaders being too busy with flourish, poontang or dogma) to make sure they have competent underlings. Most actions can be explained in many ways. You call people cons, others think we are doing the right thing defending democracy. You seem to think Kerry is a hero. I think he is a decent guy, a good politician, but a politician nevertheless, who would be within a very close distance of where the Bush team would be today if he had been President on 9/11. Almost everything, other than campaign bashing, indicates he would have had the same WMD "intelligence" and the same reaction that after Afghanistan, next target was Iraq. I also believe that Clinton and Gore and most definitely Lieberman would have been largely on the same level in every Bush endeavor. I can only argue with the level of governmental incompetence,as that is something I have dealt with most of my life from the private sector, and I have to think that almost anyone else would have been more competent than the current administration. Thus, a democratic move into Iraq would more likely be deemed a success. There would not be the left-wing attacks. I haven't considered how the extreme right wing would be attacking Gore for taking out Saddam, but I'm sure they'd come up with something. You'd probably have right wing extremists saying Gore was controlled by the Jewish lobby and that he did it all for Israel. See what I mean about whacko conspiracy theorists preventing real change and progress. Nobody wants to do the really hard work of reforming government from top to bottom, eliminating the pork, eliminating the layers of red tape, having real goals in black and white and policies that are meaningful and that can be followed by someone in the street, in the field. It's much easier to point fingers and say,"it's all a conspiracy."