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: Tenchusatsu who wrote (192058)	6/28/2004 2:28:42 PM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1578705

Ten, re: Bush has pursued policies that carried high political risks along with the potential for strong results. The risks he has taken are not just (domestic) political, they are also social, economic, and "political" in a world wide sense. But I agree that "the results haven't panned out (to say the least)". He's risked way too much and too many, and we are way worse off for it. John

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (192058)	6/28/2004 2:47:16 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1578705

You all are out of touch. Like I've said before, wake up and smell the coffee! I hope for your sake, Kerry wins in November. Then you can finally let go of your "Anyone But Bush" blinders and see how a non-leader like Kerry can screw things up. I going to respond to this part first. You all make a big thing about Bush being a leader and Kerry not. However, from where I come, a leader isn't formed overnite. He has a track record that he builds on over time. Leadership qualities and capabilities don't happen suddenly. Now lets look at Bush's track record..........he assumed leadership capabilities when he ran for governor a scant 8 years ago. Prior to that, his life was a hodgepodge of drinking, snorting coke, questionable oil deals, managing a ball club and a suspect military stint.....yes, where there's smoke there's fire.......I believe firmly that Bush was 'AWOL'. It was very much in keeping with the character he exhibited at that time.....DUIs, snorting, drinking etc. Now let's look at his presidency.......he came in looking like a hog farmer hitting the big city for the first time. He clearly was not ready for the job in almost anyway and would have been fired after the first two years had he been in the private sector. His understanding of people is wanting.........he has little empathy or he wouldn't say half the things that MM caught so aptly on film. He didn't know the names of foreign leaders and the location of their countries; he seemed to know little about the operations of Congress in spite of the fact his father had been VP and President for years; he spoke to God with a frequency that belied his belief in the separation of church and state.....the list goes on for quite a while. If this is what you call a leader, then there is little point for further discussion. And this idiocy that a strong leader doesn't listen to his people is about as undemocratic as you can get. Stalin didn't listen to his people nor did Hitler. I am not impressed! Kerry may not be a dynamo nor have the charm of an Edwards or a Clinton but he sure as hell fits the mold of a leader much better than Bush. His history reads like that of a leader......an accomplished one at that. I don't agree with all of his politics but I sure as hell agree that his presence in the WH will be a monstrous improvement over Bush. ted

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (192058)	6/28/2004 3:02:15 PM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1578705

Ted, Why do half the people in this country believe ANYONE is more acceptable than Bush? Actually, that's a good question that the Republicans ought to be asking. Two reasons come to mind: - Bush has pursued policies that carried high political risks along with the potential for strong results. The results haven't panned out as ideally as he had hoped (and that's putting it very mildly), and he's paying for it politically. That's true. If you see that, why do you still support him? - The Democrats are so fragmented and so disorganized that they don't have anything else to rally to, except the "Anyone But Bush" mantra. Every political platform they assume has been framed from the point-of-view of what Bush hasn't done, rather than what they will do. I think that's a bit of an exaggeration. I do think the Dems are polarized away from Bush but that's because Bush is so 'out there'. I also think they have an agenda but its dramatically overshadowed by the war in Iraq. For you to better understand the thinking of the Dems., you need to go to your statement you posted up above. If you, an ardent Bush supporter, see his missteps so clearly, try to imagine the reaction of people who were not his supporters and who presciently saw the missteps he was about to make and voiced their concerns only to be ignored. Trust me, when I say, they are in a place of 'take no prisoners'. That's how Bush accomplished the division of a nation and how we have become so polarized. This is not the actions of a good leader.....at least not IMO! ted