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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jlallen who wrote (713797)	11/17/2005 4:15:26 PM
From: pompsander	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

My problem is that both sides state interpretations of intentions as facts. One of the posters a few minutes ago stated as a fact what GWB's intent was in invading Iraq - to remove a brutal dictator and install democracy in the heart of the Middle East. He may be right, but it is possible to hold a view that his intenttions were otherwise. No one but GWB knows the true answer. The American people aren't stupid and generally they find the issues that matter to them and form their own opinions as to motivations - but we are each entitled to have those opinions. Bill says, for example, that the best democrat on fiscal responsiblity was worse than the worst Republican. His view. Personally, I would take Bob Kerrey or some of the old Blue Dogs anytime over the republican spendthrifts we have now. In my opinon (just an opinion) Ted Stevens is a joke. Tom Delay's comment about having cut all that could be cut is a joke. I think just saying Republican = fiscally better is not providing a lot of analytic thought, as the facts don't support the claim. And I respect Bill, but when I read that I had to just about choke. Anyway, using terms like "enemy", "idiots" and "traitors" just cheapens the debate, in my view. We all gotta live together somehow (although some posters would seem to like to send others far, far away. <g>)