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: SilentZ who wrote (204749)	10/3/2004 2:26:26 AM
From: beach_bum	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1573924

I am a long-time lurker. Finally got an account. This thread is way too happening. "However, the foreign policy debate was the one Kerry was most likely to lose, and he won... domestic policy should be even better" I hear that too, but dont understand why. Foreign Policy has been a nightmare for Bush (except Afganistan and Libya). Problems in just about every front on international issue - Iraq, Iran/N. Korea, "roadmap", Germany/France/Russia, Kyoto breach etc. On Domestic issue, he's taken some clear steps that can help his case - tax cut, improving economy/job numbers in select timeframe (since June 03), housing market, Oil!!, etc. Environment will hurt him, but he has pleased the conservatives with anti-gay, anti-abortion stance. Bum

To: SilentZ who wrote (204749)	10/3/2004 8:45:32 AM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1573924

"I have to quibble with this statement..." You should more than quibble with that statement. A draw would have been fine for Kerry. What he needed to do is come off as decisive, realistic and straight forward. He badly needed to counter the spin that Bush and his merry band of pirates have been putting on Kerry's image. He managed to do that. While there were some things he mis-stated, they were relatively minor. I wish he would dump the #200 billion claim for the war, to defend that number takes some handwaving and it isn't a whole lot worse than the real number of $120 billion that was supposed to be a whole lot less. I wish he had pushed the issue that the version of the $87 billion appropriation he voted for would have provided more health care for the military and been at least partially paid for, but Bush had vowed to veto that one out of hand if it passed. The only version Bush had indicated he would sign was the version that provided less care for the troops and was totally unfunded. If it was so important to support the troops, why was Bush so dogmatic about which version was allowed? Either should have been fine...