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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: bela_ghoulashi who wrote (176188)	8/11/2006 4:05:17 PM
From: Alan Smithee	Respond to of 793625

Maybe they only seem to oppose these things as long as Bush is in office, and they will do a 180 if a Democrat gets elected. But why risk it, I say, if they are that conditional about it in the first place? As Hugh Hewitt states in "If its Not Close, They Can't Cheat," our national security is too important to trust to the Democrats. Why risk it?

To: bela_ghoulashi who wrote (176188)	8/11/2006 4:30:00 PM
From: Rambi	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793625

Well, I believe that, because I am one of those people. And I think Lane3 feels similarly, and several people on Center certainly do, and there have been several comments to that effect on DAR and other threads today, but you do point out something that does bothered me. The antipathy toward Bush is so great that it may be preventing the anti-war people from moving away from blaming and toward constructive talk and the intense anti-Bush feelings of course cause defensive reactions from the prowar believers. So what do you do?