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 : GOPwinger Lies/Distortions/Omissions/Perversions of Truth -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: thewolverine who wrote (26826)	10/3/2004 11:29:31 PM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 173976

Well, I don't buy the megalomaniac diagnosis. Let's look at what you've said about him: a lot of whom truly believed that they were doing what was in the best interest of their country I'm sure Bush believes he is doing what is in the best interest of the country. But is that a bad thing? Should we prefer someone who believes he isn't doing what is in his country's best interest, or who is indifferent? Of course not. All had their adoring followers And is it a bad thing that he has followers who like him? Most politicians do. Even Kerry has at least one such follower. unwavering in their decisions And is that a bad thing? If they continue to believe the decision is right, then they shouldn't waver. All responded badly, and many times violently, to having their decisions questioned Now this certainly doesn't apply to Bush. The left has called Bush every name in the book over the last four years and condemned everything he's done and hasn't done. And Bush has not even responded in anger. Much less violence. All solidified power by revising old laws and/or instituting new ones. All used times of disaray to wrest greater power to themselves by slowly and systamically remove personal freedoms in the name of 'public good. I think here you may be thinking of the Patriot Act. But we should remember a few things: 1) Congress passed it overwhelmingly and both Kerry and Edwards voted for it (btw I understand Kerry drafted parts of it but don't know which) 2) the courts have rejected some things - which shows that the division of powers is working 3) the act has sunset provisions and must be extended soon of expire 4) even w/o such sunset provisions Congress has the power to alter the act's provisions 5) there h/b no serious abuses associated from the act - if there had been the press would be trumpeting them 6) the act has done good in making the country safer and securer. At least these are my opinions. If anyone can disprove them feel free. All believed that they were the right man for the right time and were therefore called to their position by providence/history. Even Kerry thinks he is the right man for the time or he wouldn't be running. Does Bush think divine providence favors him being in office? Perhaps, but if he were to lose the election, he'd conclude that was in divine providence's plan as well. At any rate, that's my reasons for thinking your megalomaniac opinion is off base. I will defer to you characterization of Kerry as a waffler though.