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: Road Walker who wrote (279132)	3/8/2006 7:07:13 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 1577124

If the ancient political wisdom is correct that a charge unanswered is a charge agreed to I wouldn't agree to it in this context, but than I might agree to the charges anyway. I'll read on... How George W. Bush Bankrupted America I would say not guilty to that charge. "This is a big-government agenda," Guilty as charged. "It is fueled by a new ideology, the ideology of Christian fundamentalism." IMO not guilty. "You have to understand the people in this administration have no principles," Sullivan volleyed. "Any principles that get in the way of the electoral map have to be dispensed with." Again I would say not guilty. I'm not saying he never cuts corners on principles for reasons of political expediency but I don't think I've seen anything that justifies the assertion that he has no principles. Bartlett said that "the administration lies about budget numbers." Maybe guilty but than I think he is far from alone in this. And perhaps not guilty. Spinning numbers by presenting them in a favorable way isn't the same as outright lying about them. Maybe they have made outright lies but I don't think its been proven. At the very least some statements are certainly misleading along the lines of normal political spin, and that is not something to be proud of, or loudly support. "He's a socialist in so many respects Depends on what you mean by socialist. I think that calling Bush a socialist goes too far. Big spender yes, but is every big spender a socialist? I suppose if we had minimal government and then all the sudden Bush implimented our current government I would say it was socialist, or at least a big step in that direction, but Bush's changes have been changes at the margin, less than LBJ, and far less then FDR. Of course comparing Bush to them is hardly a good defense of his fiscal restraint or belief in free market principles. Bush is guilty of being a major disapointment in this area, I just think "socialist" is probably saying too much. If he is a socialist then most of the Democratic party are socialists, and FDR was a communist. (BTW to make it clear I think those statements go to far as well, I don't think any of them should be measured on such a scale) Karl Rove's political strategy is "pathetic." Its starting to look that way. Rove has some skills but its not like Bush's support is either high or rising, rather the reverse. he is a phenomenally reckless human being Again perhaps too strong. I might agree to a lesser "charge". Tim