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: tejek who wrote (303910)	9/29/2006 5:11:14 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 1573198

Why are you telling me this stuff? To refute your incorrect assertion that I have consistently endorsed the polices of this administration. 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. He doesn't cover some of the relatively major ones that well. OTOH I can't find any candidate that does. 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. I dislike socialism in general. That doesn't mean I abhor anything that has to do with socialism. I'm not an anarcho capitalist, I see a role for the state, and that role could get much larger than what I see as ideal before I would abhor it. Pretty much agreeing with Bush's approach, doesn't mean I agree with every aspect of it, or even every major aspect. Although it does probably require that I not have a strong disagreement with any major aspect. I do indeed support Bush dealing with Musharraf, but mostly only because I don't think there was any serious alternative. What would you have done? 1 - Leave the Taliban in power? 2 - Try to assassinate Musharraf and hope somehow that his successor would be better? 3 - Attack Pakistan? 4 - Try to invade Afghanistan without any cooperation from Pakistan? (And also would you have done so without relying on the so called "outsourcing" that some on this thread have condemned? If so the invasion would have to be larger). 5 - Attacked Afghanistan through Pakistan over the objections (and possibly even the military response) of Pakistan? 6 - Nuked Afghanistan? None of these are/were good ideas. So how many al Qaida members has Pakistan helped us capture? Three? I don't have the number but I think its far higher than 3. As for Chavez. If he was PM of Pakistan, and the situation was otherwise the same (except perhaps Clinton or Gore was president), than I would not have opposed dealing with Chavez. (Depending of course on what type of deal you could get). With him as president of Venuzuela I can't see an equivalently important reason to deal with him in the same way.