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 : Sioux Nation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: redfish who wrote (6352)	2/3/2005 3:42:43 PM
From: SiouxPal	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 361474

He said it on CSPAN.

To: redfish who wrote (6352)	2/3/2005 3:53:06 PM
From: techguerrilla	Respond to of 361474

Agree! ... Yes votes on "Sleaza" and Gonzalez ..... .......... end my interest in a particular potential leader of the Democratic Party. /john

To: redfish who wrote (6352)	2/3/2005 4:23:46 PM
From: cosmicforce	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 361474

Thanks for the invite, SP. Hello thread. So, here's the gambit... Does anyone have a different theory why the two party system has produced leaders who are largely cardboard cut-outs for the past 20 years or so? I don't see any end to it and I don't think that Jesse Jackson would have been a good President, nor do I feel that having such a thought in my head automatically makes me a racist. Clinton was just enough of a horn-dog to be easily set up - he liked his bosomy big haired girls and thought that getting laid was just one of the perks of being Bill Clinton. I don't think any of that made him a bad president, though. On average, he wasn't too bad. But, not a candidate for picture on the 100 dollar bill. Hillary should never have referred to herself as "co-president" - that made me cringe. I didn't agree with his unilateral involvement in Bosnia, for instance, but that looked a lot better seeing the current Neocon-artist plans in Iraq. Or Iran. I liked Carter and feel he got blamed (wrongly) for the economy. I don't think ANY previous President had that much control over the economy until such abominations as the trade agreements, NAFTA notably being among the first. BTW, it was the Senate that approves negotiated treaties, so their are just as guilty. My theory is that ultimately, to vote against the two party tyranny, you have to digest alternative view points based upon facts that most voters are too uneducated to comprehend. The press is so weakened by being made a profit center of media giants that if the top ten issues facing the U.S. can't be encapsulated in a happy 30-second sound byte, it isn't news. That supports the status quo. Now, with Patriot Act, we have the legal permission to set up a KBG to control any sort of non-conformist voice as a presumed threat to national security. Just like J. Edgar Hoover's reign of extra-Constitutional lawlessness. Deep breath. End of rant. Thanks for the welcome. What are we going to do to fix this mess?