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.

Pastimes : Clown-Free Zone... sorry, no clowns allowed -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: redfish who wrote (291708)	7/26/2004 9:23:29 AM
From: Knighty Tin	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 436258

red, I blame both Kerry and Edwards for being suckered by Bush's lies about Saddam. It has long been a tradition is the USA to believe the Commander In Chief when he says we have to move. But it shouldn't have taken long for them to figure out that Saddam was no threat to the USA, much less an imminent threat. The only improvement in the war under Kerry would be the fact that the military would have lost less men, as they would have fought efficiently, ala Clinton, rather than direct attack macho style (he is a a brave guy when he is not on the line, himself), like Bush. Also, we wouldn't have been taxed so heavily as Kerry would not have given the finger to our allies and the UN. He would have gained a consensus, ala Bush Senior, and dragged in shekels from other countries. I would vote for Nader if he had a chance. He doesn't, so a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush.