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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: michael97123 who wrote (183665)	3/17/2006 11:27:45 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Respond to of 281500

You know i used to say the same thing to the conservatives who were so obscessed with clinton that they opposed policies they would normally support. My only real problem with Clinton was his lack of discretion, and how he took advantage of a young, starry eyed, and not extremely attractive, intern to have his sexual frustrations satisfied. Of course, having an opportunistic wife like Hillary didn't help. I also didn't like how he pandered to the extreme left and the gay lobby. It was like he was trying to force people to accept their lifestyle as normal, almost an advocacy of it in our schools. I felt the policy should be tolerance, without promotion of it But over all, his wasn't nearly as extreme (nor as incompetent) as his buddy Al Gore, or the local liberal talent like Howard Dean. As for John Kerry, he's arrogant and nasty. I'll never forget how he treated his Secret Service escort in Sun Valley, Idaho, when the agent accidentally ran into him while skiing. He called the agent an SOB. But all said, I would feel FAR MORE comfortable with Clinton than I would with these others, from a Foreign Policy perspective. John Edwards, on the other hand, may actually be the best choice for the Democrats in the next election. I feel comfortable with him as well. Hawk

To: michael97123 who wrote (183665)	3/17/2006 11:46:11 AM
From: cnyndwllr	Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 281500

Michael, why do you applaud the rants of Hawk when he claims the opposition to Bush is based on hatred and emotions? Anyone...ANYONE...who doesn't "hate" the foreign policy/domestic erosion path that the Bush Administration has put us on shares far different values than those of our fathers and grandfathers. Strongly opposing that path is not an emotional weakness, it's the duty of an American citizen who wishes to preserve the best of America. Periodically you've recognized where Bush is leading the nation and YOU have consistently disagreed with most of what he's done. The difference between you and those of us who cut Bush no slack, however, is that you always seem to look for an excuse to change your mind. Why is that? The rest of us saw that his path would inevitably lead to failure and the rest of us have been right. It's leading to more death, more destruction and a dangerous erosion of our values and system of governance. Those of you who keep coming back like battered wives to "hope for the best" are the ones who've allowed your emotions to rule your brains, not those of us who've strongly and consistently opposed his reckless use of power. As I've said before, patriotism is a dangerous drug and loyalty to a corrosive leadership is no virtue. If you find comfort in the blind ideological rants of a poster like Hawk, who cannot or will not comprehend even the most obvious failings of the Bush leadership, maybe it's time to sit down in a quiet place and examine how objective you really are. Ed