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.

Technology Stocks : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: GVTucker who wrote (181149)	5/15/2005 4:41:00 PM
From: Elmer Phud	Respond to of 186894

GV Bush isn't stupid. On average, the education level of the people who voted for him is no different than that of the people that voted for Kerry. Stupidity isn't part of the equation. The data speak to those who voted for him, not Bush himself. I think it's possible for smart people to vote for someone who's not too bright when the alternative is even less appealing. That's what happened in 2000 and 2004, IMO.

To: GVTucker who wrote (181149)	5/15/2005 4:56:33 PM
From: Dave Budde	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 186894

On average, the education level of the people who voted for him is no different than that of the people that voted for Kerry. Oh, really: chrisevans3d.com

To: GVTucker who wrote (181149)	5/15/2005 6:44:43 PM
From: Lizzie Tudor	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

On average, the education level of the people who voted for him is no different than that of the people that voted for Kerry. Is that really true? It flies in the face of the obvious, because the blue states on average have higher educational level residents and higher per capita income.

To: GVTucker who wrote (181149)	5/15/2005 10:06:11 PM
From: The Duke of URL©	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

The reason that Bush won is that Dean was for campaign finance reform and to shake up the Democratic old guard and their special interests and sinecures. So, the Democratic national committee started withdrawing support from Dean and put forth one of the go along to get along guys, Kerry. Unfortunately we got what they deserved.

To: GVTucker who wrote (181149)	5/28/2005 12:23:52 PM
From: Amy J	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Gottfried, yes, sounds like IBM is cleaning up on the game consoles? Though Lizzie posted that xbox went with Marvell, which wouldn't be so bad - at least Marvell is in the wimax camp. ( The rest of this post is OT, so please ignore as approp.) OT OT OT GV, wanted to get back to this old post, because it still bugged me just a tad. You implied my comment was a reference to the voters, when in fact it wasn't. In fact, some of the smartest people I know voted for Bush - they did so because they wanted to avoid paying more wage taxes. It just so happens, I have other values (that I won't mention, to avoid a political discussion) and admittedly, I do better when the stock market does better (no wars). Am not bringing politics up, so to be clear, this post is about how uncomfortable I was, with the suggestion that people who voted for Bush are stupid. My comment was about Bush, not the voters. I think Duke's reply to you about Dems lack of special interests with Dean hit the answer on the head. I also believe the Republican Party's marketing capabilities are very powerful. Basically, us Democrats have no hope, with such a powerful Republican marketing machine - they can get anyone in. You actually missed the underlying theme in my post where I said: the "image" of stupidity is popular and is this our new America? It's not really popular to be an engineer anymore. This image has to be addressed, otherwise people will gravitate away from it. In a nutshell, America admires sports heros, Congress talks about steroids, meanwhile they let the image of engineering go down the tubes. It's not that way in other countries. It reflects poorly on the leadership of this country. I'd start an initiative to change this badly beaten image by attacking the image of athletes thru the power of money that sports has, by taxing all sport tickets with a 100% tax until that revenue is dinged into a bad image. Additionally, the only recent decent movie engineers ever were granted from Hollywood was Office Space - where's the initiative to get more hightech stars in movies? Until hightech is mentioned as a subliminal positive in Hollywood movies, we're going to keep getting a negative image. It says a lot when Congress is focused on athletes' steroids and so-called entertainers like Janet Jackson, rather than larger priorities. Regards, Amy J