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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: michael97123 who wrote (149508)	10/28/2004 8:54:42 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

I see. You are going to vote for a guy who rushes to use an almost immediately discredited news story against the president, reaching the point of pontificating that it is a growing scandal even as it deflates further, over some goofily phrased observation of Bush's, which, if you think about it holds up: not about the particular stash in question, but in the over all point that Saddam had plenty of deadly explosives that would not ordinarily fall under the rubric WMD, but would create havoc if, say, exploded at the World Series, to hand off to the terrorists. We have destroyed thousands of tons of the stuff, and what is available to our foes is being used in Iraq, not Times Square. I think you are a little off base here, mike.

To: michael97123 who wrote (149508)	10/28/2004 9:17:30 AM
From: Keith Feral	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Mike: I hope you are kidding. This whole issue is a complete non event. These guys are going to harp on whatever issues they can cling too. It is the inevitable result of the ridiculous pressure with 1 week until the election. Too bad they could not produce bin Laden out of the dungeons before this weekend. They must still be shoving pineapples up his ass ala Little Nikki style.

To: michael97123 who wrote (149508)	10/28/2004 9:19:17 AM
From: skinowski	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Change your mind? Dunno... I may be wrong, but it seems that you are planning to vote against the side with whom you generally - strategically - agree, and FOR those with whom you disagree - and you would do that because of limited tactical differences and errors. You don't need any new news to change your mind, you've got all the info you need... -g.

To: michael97123 who wrote (149508)	10/28/2004 12:26:30 PM
From: Michael Watkins	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

But i cant stand lying. I cant stand lack of accountablility. I cant stand an inability to change course. These are all very good reasons for replacing a government, even if its your party. I have voted against the party line before, it will happen again. I've worked on enough campaigns to know that people making policy decisions are not always right; the people running the political side are not always honest. Sometimes they cross a grey line too far... then its time they be replaced. That's what elections are for.

To: michael97123 who wrote (149508)	10/30/2004 10:09:01 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Voting for Kerry because you "can't stand lack of accountability" is like a pro-Union man voting for McClellan in 1864 to punish Lincoln's mistakes in running the Civil War - and boy were there some doozies, costing tens of thousands of lives! So to punish Lincoln, you would have voted for a man who intended to negotiate with the Confederacy - which would have amounted to conceding their survival and their victory. It doesn't make sense. It just doesn't make sense. If you look at what Bush has done, he has actually changed tactics several times in Iraq. What he won't do is admit mistakes, because the lesson he's drawn from the way the press covers him is that they're only looking for the 'gotcha' they can pound on for weeks, why hand it to them? Considering the way they do cover him, I can't exactly blame him for drawing this conclusion.