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 : Actual left/right wing discussion -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JBTFD who wrote (3727)	10/30/2006 11:58:04 AM
From: one_less	Respond to of 10087

The United States is world's biggest threat to peace according to Swedes surveyed in a poll Media Release Oct. 29, 2006 The United States is a greater threat to world peace than North Korea, according to Swedes surveyed in a poll aired on Sunday. Some 29 per cent of those surveyed said the US posed the biggest danger to peace, compared to 28 per cent who considered North Korea the top menace, according to the Temo poll broadcast on Sunday by Swedish television station Axess. Among Swedes aged 16-29, a striking 40 per cent believed the US presented the greatest risk. Iran placed third with 18 per cent, followed by Israel (six per cent), China (four per cent) and Russia (three per cent). Some 1,000 people were surveyed.

To: JBTFD who wrote (3727)	10/30/2006 11:58:53 AM
From: one_less	Respond to of 10087

Without the leadership of George Bush and America, the world will fall apart from the risks of terroism Sudhir Chadda Oct. 29, 2006 What George Bush did is to make the terrorist think about the consequences before they strike. The Iraq war can be criticized but it has made Al-Quaida think before going after American targets. America did not suffer from terror attacks after moving against Afghan Talibans and the regime of Saddam Hussein. The only people who can criticize those moves are the Americans themselves. It is the Americans who have sacrificed again for the world to keep the world safe. The recent poll in Sweden that shows America a greater threat than North Korea is ridiculous at the least. This is because as Sweden faces threat from Islamic terrorists they will look towards America to rescue them. The Islamic terrorists had already their mind set to hit India, America, Western Europe, Russia and Israel. America took the leadership to trigger some cataclysmic events to remind the terrorists that their terror acts will be not be unanswered. Osama Bin Laden can hide but he cannot think of hitting America again. As an example to what would have happened if US President George Bush did not act with iron hands is what is happening to India. Because Pakistan does nothing and Islamic terrorists have nothing to lose, they keep hitting India again and again.

To: JBTFD who wrote (3727)	10/30/2006 12:00:36 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 10087

True but not very meaningful. Presidents are not solely responsible for the fiscal results during their administration. The actions of congress are a major factor, and the actions of previous presidents and congresses are also a factor. Also their are circumstances that aren't controlled by the US government that effect the fiscal situation. New programs tend to grow. The government (president and congress) who started them should properly carry part of the blame for later spending. FDR's and Johnson's new programs have caused extra spending for every succeeding government. To a lesser extent Bush's II's new drug program will do the same. And of course congress passes the spending bills. Bush II has mostly had a Republican congress, but even so congress is still separate from him. Reagan and Bush I had mostly Democratic congresses. Clinton could afford to cut the military because 1 - The end of the cold war, and 2 - Reagan's build up allowed him to make cuts but still have a strong military. Clinton also had a tech stock bubble that provided more income for him, and then when it burst provided less income for Bush II. Bush II had 9/11, Afghanistan, Katrina, and a recession to deal with. (Also Iraq but you would probably say that's his own fault). None of which means Bush II has been very fiscally responsible, he has not been, but simple comparisons of administrations aren't a very good basis for such conclusions.