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 : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Raymond Duray who wrote (61744)	10/19/2004 7:45:49 PM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 89467

"VISUALIZE WINNING" needlenose.com

To: Raymond Duray who wrote (61744)	10/19/2004 7:55:42 PM
From: SiouxPal	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 89467

Thanks Raymond. I've been on the warpath sir. After 300 years we have a new Revolutionary War that involves so much for our future singularly,and for the makeup of our future Supreme Court on a multiple angle. We win big, or we lose bigger. Maybe one more arrow will be drawn against this sham of a regime we are having to endure. .... and have a lovely day SiouxPal

To: Raymond Duray who wrote (61744)	10/19/2004 10:42:23 PM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 89467

Some interesting posts from a Financial Times website... forums.ft.com Bush is more vulnerable to a dirty attack than you think. by Dissident 18 Oct 2004 04:45 AM Even Stevens at the moment. This looks like going to the wire. Bush is very vulnerable on the war on terror, and I wish someone would do a Willie Horton over this on him: - posner's revelations of the suppression of abu zubaydah's confession - the connections between al-qaeda and the Pakistani ISI (for example Omar Sheik's cellphone, General Mahmoud Ahmed,and Muhammad Atta) - and the US support for the ISI - see for example the connections between General Mahmoud Ahmed, the head of ISI and Muhammed Atta, and the connections between General Mahmoud Ahmed and Powell and Tenet, and the Bush administration. - the decision to let several thousand al-qaeda fighters leave the beseiged city of Kunduz on Pakistani military aircraft in November 2001. - and the crucial fact, that all these involve protecting the royal family of Saudi Arabia from US and international law, and the fact that Bush owes much of his wealth to Saudi money. Have a look at Craig Unger's book, among other sources. Bush is too dependent on Islamic fundamentalist terrorists to be able to prosecute a war against them. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Moral clarity ? by Ingrid 18 Oct 2004 03:50 AM Bush has been using the 9.11. incident as his top theme to win votes so far. The messy aftermath of Iraq and Afghanistan are all justified under the topic of resolution to fight terrorism. The bad financial conditions are instead glossed over by praising himeself for a great job done through senseless tax cuts for the rich. In addition, his strategists kept using such key phrases as "moral clarity" to attack Kerry. For anyone with a more clear head, Bush's clarity obviously means shallow, hollow, simple-minded, reckless, unilatral, trigger-happy, wasteful pre-emptive military attacks of foreign countries under false pretexts. The American voting public at large probably do not have the wisdom to see through all the grossly misleading claims.