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: i-node who wrote (203130)	9/20/2004 10:46:59 AM
From: Elroy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576807

It would have been nice to have heard a little about Kerry's Senate record. But for some strange reason, that information is MIA. The lies and personal attacks coming out of the Kerry campaign are enough for most people. Well I have a similar desire to hear more about Kerry's senate record and a similar view of the Bush campaign. I would like it if Bushies would go into more details about their problems with Kerry's senate record, but instead they just repeat the mantra that "he changes his mind" without explanation when that happened, or explanation as to why he changed his mind (if he did). Changing your mind in and of itself is not a bad thing, after all it shows the ability to learn. And I think the Bush campaign's constant harping on Kerry supporting the war and then voting against the funding dumbs down what actually went on. The whole US government (and the majority of US citizens) supported the war concept as it was fed to them by Bush's administration. As for the funding bill, I can't recall the exact reasons, but there is something along the lines of certain members of the senate were trying to attach things to the bill, and if they had Bush would have vetoed it (Bush never brings this up for some reason). I believe Kerry made a symbolic 'no' vote on a bill he knew was going to pass in order to express his opposition to something else in (or not in) the bill. In other words, the whole issue smacks of marketing and sound bites, as oppposed to a substantial issue. Regardless of whether one believes the war was justified, there is just no doubt about which of these individuals is more qualified to lead the country from here. Well as I said, I think the war was justified, but its the execution of the 15 months after the war ended that make me give the "Iraq" issue to the Anyone But Bush side. Who knows what Kerry will do in Iraq, but it seems it certainly can't be any worse than what Bush is currently doing (and supposedly will continue for doing for 4 more years). It's a quagmire, and George was the one who had the short post-war window of opportunity to make it otherwise, and instead probably went on vacation. The Iraqis are using their newfound, coalition-generated "freedom" to car bomb each other to death, not much of a result to be proud of. Elroy