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: combjelly who wrote (247202)	8/24/2005 1:36:55 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572445

"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"... ........and providing subsidies to cash rich oil companies. ted

To: combjelly who wrote (247202)	8/31/2005 12:04:42 AM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572445

Most realistically possible presidents wouldn't of even have had energy independence as a serious agenda item, and IMO there is some very good reasons why this is so, its not an achievable agenda. At least not in the short term (a few years, a presidential term or two) While it could be argued that some steps in that direction could be a net positive; I don't think an extreme effort to achieve it would either stand much chance at succeeding or be a positive thing for the economy. None of which means Bush's policies are optimal, or even close. Tim