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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: carranza2 who wrote (75728)	10/8/2004 10:13:02 AM
From: John Carragher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793790

they both should get us more votes... if helen thomas and latimes sponsor kerry then we know bush is right man for the job.

To: carranza2 who wrote (75728)	10/8/2004 10:20:06 AM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793790

I think Carter is the worst president in American history. He withdrew support for the Shah of Iran, which led to the religious loonies taking over that country. At the same time, he supported religious loonies in Afghanistan attacking the Russians. Pitting fundamentalist Islamists against Communists. Giving them money, training, and lots of weapons. Brilliant. Yet, he supported the Sandinista Communists in Nicaragua, and he looked the other way when Cuban Communists took over Grenada. Human rights - he agreed with Baby Doc Duvalier not to accept Haitian refugees. He gave military aid to Indonesia while they slaughtered the East Timorese. He helped the Khmer Rouge keep their seat in the UN. I could go on. His domestic policy sucked too. Remember the sweaters? And his attempt to get national health care?

To: carranza2 who wrote (75728)	10/8/2004 1:58:10 PM
From: Neeka	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793790

LOS ANGELES TIMES COLUMN: BUSH WORST PRESIDENT IN AMERICAN HISTORY Fri Oct 08 2004 09:46:43 ET In a LA TIMES column, Jonathan Chait blasts: "To say that I consider Bush a 'bad' president would be a severe understatement. I think he's bad in a way that redefines my understanding of the word 'bad.' "I used to think U.S. history had many bad presidents. Now, my 'bad' category consists entirely of George W. Bush, with every previous president redefined as 'good.' <<<<"There's also the fact that, on a personal level, I despise him with the white-hot intensity of a thousand suns. What I'm saying is, advocating Bush is kind of tricky." But "what I'll argue instead is that his very awfulness is the reason he deserves reelection. Begin with the premise that a second-term Bush administration is unlikely to make things a whole lot worse." Bush's presidency "is a great mass of contradictions. There's an enormous gap between his purported values - fiscal discipline, toughness against terrorists, a commitment to social conservatism - and his true record. "Sure, it would be emotionally satisfying to see Bush rejected by the voters once again. But maybe, for this president, defeat is too kind a fate.">>>> This was the exact arguement my socialist/liberal friend made to me the other night. "I'd like to see him re-elected if only to let him stew in his own mess, and the pleasure it would bring me in watching him squirm while trying to fix it." It must be that "feel good" mentality?