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: SiouxPal who wrote (16529)	5/11/2005 10:38:15 PM
From: DavesM	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 361344

You mean Bush vs. Bush Lite? Though I defended Bush last year on SI, I really didn't think that a Kerry Presidency would have changed things very much. I guess if I had to choose I'd chose Bush - though in my state it didn't matter. I mean, Kerry's positions were all over the map. At this point, the only thing I still remember about Kerry is that: A. Somehow he was going to convince the Germans and French to commit troops to Iraq. B. He is a Vietnam War combat veteran. C. A large number of fellow Vietnam War veterans still hold a grudge against the man. D. He would have invaded Iraq too, but gotten the French and Germans to take part. On the other hand, maybe he wouldn't have. But he voted for the Resolution to attack Iraq, but he didn't mean for his vote to actually mean that we would invade... This is going to seem strange, but often Democrats win elections by running the the RIGHT of Republicans. Truman kicked the far left out of the Democratic Party (at least for a while). Kennedy complained that the Eisenhower/Nixon Administration had allowed the Soviets to pass the USA in ballistic missiles. LBJ ran on finishing what JFK began - and since JFK sent combat troops to Vietnam... Carter argued that Gerald Ford was wrong - and people in the Easter Block were not free.