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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (247190)	8/23/2005 9:52:46 PM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572371

re: If you could pick who would have become president in place of Bush, and you can include yourself as a possible pick, even if you are not eligible for some reason, I don't think that your choice, Gore, you, any Democrat, any Republican, would have lead the US to "energy independence". Tim, you have to learn to write shorter sentences. People might actually understand what you are trying to say. Hate him or like him, Gore was sounding the energy bell long before any of the other major politicians. Outside of the disaster in Iraq, our dysfunctional energy policy is our most significant problem and thus our most significant opportunity. Obviously not being addressed by our dysfunctional government. John

To: TimF who wrote (247190)	8/23/2005 10:36:15 PM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1572371

"I don't think that your choice, Gore, you, any Democrat, any Republican, would have lead the US to "energy independence"." Maybe not. But they probably would have had it as an agenda item instead of "stay the course"...

To: TimF who wrote (247190)	8/24/2005 12:23:12 PM
From: RetiredNow	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1572371

I honestly believe that in the wake of 9/11, this country would have followed a good leader down any path they felt was right. Think about it. Most Democrats voted for war against Iraq, even though now most are against Iraq. I can almost guarantee that if we had a leader who said we needed a "Manhattan" scale project to get our country off the oil in 10 years, every last man, woman, and child would have been 100% behind it. We could have rammed legislation through congress to mandate increasing CAFE requirements to reach 75 mpg within 10 years, mandate use of 50% or more corn or sugar based alcohol in our gas, provided tax incentives for consumers and manufacturers of hybrids and fuel cells, etc. That would have radically altered the landscape in this country. Then our President could have goen to the U.N., NATO, and Europe and said, we don't need your help to fight our wars. We need your help on our "Manhattan" project to marginalize oil consumption across the world. They could have worked that into a grand, global scale new Kyoto accord, focused on getting the world off the oil, with the good side effect of environmental protection. It would have worked and as much as I despise Gore, he could have and probably would have done that job, albeit, maybe not as radically as I would have liked. But this country doesn't have a good leader like that.