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: TimF who wrote (303770)	9/20/2006 5:58:02 PM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1573092

"For an example if someone said that Bush was the most fiscally imprudent leader in history," Given that the debt, under Bush, has increased almost as much as all previous administrations before had managed to rack up combined, and has never even come close to vetoing a spending bill, who in your mind would be the most fiscally imprudent leader in history?

To: TimF who wrote (303770)	9/21/2006 7:26:38 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573092

Tim, since 2000, you have indicated through your actions and your comments that you endorse the policies of this administration Some of them I support. Some of them I accept without really supporting. Some I might not really support, but I defend against false charges. (For an example if someone said that Bush was the most fiscally imprudent leader in history, I would rightfully call that nonsense, it doesn't mean I think Bush is fiscally prudent, or that I support his out of control spending) Some I oppose. Why are you telling me this stuff? Its pretty typical of how most people feel when they vote for someone. No leader can truly represent all your interests. So you make sure s/he covers the major ones and you try to ignore the smaller differences. In fact, the dominant theme I get from you is capitalism is good; socialism is bad. You are correct in that assessment. "Capitalism is good" doesn't even vaguely resemble "any leader who supports a fairly capitalist policy should be supported", much less "I like all dictators who are not socialists". Let's see.........you voted for Bush. Presumabably you and he are pretty much in sync when it comes to the major issues except for his lack of fiscal responsibility. Like him, you favor capitalism and abhor anything that has to do with socialism. You support his wars; you pretty much agree with the approach he is taking to defeat terrorism. One aspect of that approach is his alignment with some questionable leaders like Musharraf. This is not something minor.....this guy is a dictator who can be ruthless. He has sold missiles to NK. Pakistan, Iran and NK had been having a little trading party when it came to weaponry. Musharraf promised to stop but Musharraf's word is as good as a hungry kid promising not to touch a pile of freshly baked chocolate chip cookies. Meanwhile the US gives Pakistan lots of financial aid in exchange for help on the war on terrorism. So how many al Qaida members has Pakistan helped us capture? Three? In any case, Bush having a close relationship with Masharraf would have turned me off completely and would have stopped me from voting for Bush if I had known of the arrangement going into an election. However, that same relationship did not stop you. So let's reverse the situation.....let's say its Clinton. Clinton has developed a strong relationship with Chavez. He is using Chavez to develop better ties with South America. Its pretty well known that that relationship exists. I had voted for Clinton twice [when in reality I only voted for him once] knowing full well of his alliance with Chavez. Do you think I was okay with Clinton's relationship with Chavez or would you think I was opposed strongly but decided to vote for Clinton in any case? Wouldn't you think.....Ted's a leftie.....I wonder if it bothers him that Clinton is hanging with some who is that far left? I am curious to see what your answer is.