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: brian1501 who wrote (194391)	7/14/2004 1:36:16 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1574270

You all should be ashamed.....defending someone who doesn't deserve to be defended. What are you.......a Bushroid first, an American second? Sorry Ted, but your argument is just silly. Whomever wins the election is president (court involvement or not), and you're being childish with this crap that he's 'not my president'. Sorry, Brian, but that election in 2000 was not won fair and square, and there will always be controversy surrounding it. The GOP was too intent on winning to make sure that the win was a clean one.......and it was not. When the voting spread was only 500 in a state where millions vote, at a minimum there should have been a revote. And then adding insult to injury, the GOP ran to the SC. And don't get me wrong........I am not just criticizing the GOP alone although they are the primary culprit. I find Gore to be the blame as well...........he was too weak to stick up to the GOP bandits who were hijacking the election. It was a dark hour in this country's history. BS, sure he is, you just don't have enough respect for your country to acknowledge it. I would disagree..........I believe its Mr. Bush that has little respect for this country and what it stands for. If he did, he would not be doing what he is done since 2000. The NAACP, of course, is not a college, but your argument applies to any group. That, or you are just selectively applying it and being hypocritical. Should the NAACP have special privileges or something? Traditionally, the GOP has been the party of exclusion. That's been the major complaint lobbed against it for years. His refusal to speak in front a body as old and as well known as the NAACP speaks volumes. Its a disgrace.........the fact you don't see that is disturbing. What does Bush have to gain by talking to the NAACP? They are decided already (in general), and their head is out making political attacks that have nothing to do with race. It's a lose, lose situation for him, so he should campaign where it may do some good. So its only about partisanship and whether you can get me elected. And has he been campaigning since 2000? He's turned them down every year since 2000. There is no excuse for this $h*t. Why do you continue to make excuses for him? ted