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: steve harris who wrote (351134)	9/19/2007 10:32:39 PM
From: RetiredNow	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1572095

They're all bad. We have few good choices. My favorites right now are Ron Paul, Bill Richardson, Obama, and Guliani, in that order. Check out the CNN bios on Ron Paul and Bill Richardson. Those guys line up pretty much with my values: Ron: cnn.com Bill: cnn.com I think Ron or Bill would be the best Presidents, but not so shockingly, they are the least likely to get elected. Americans go for the rich and good looking. I'd say Mitt Romney would have been a shoe-in with those criteria, except that most Americans will vote Democrat in 2008, so the Republicans can forget winning. I don't really like it, but Hillary is going to be our next President. The only good thing things about that are 1) anyone will be better than Bush and 2) she's a woman and it's about damn time we elect a woman. Too bad that woman will be Hillary. I would have preferred someone more like Margaret Thatcher. But most on these threads probably don't even know who she is, much less what she stood for. LOL.

To: steve harris who wrote (351134)	9/20/2007 12:00:51 AM
From: tejek	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1572095

What do you think about Republicans killing the bill that would have allowed soldiers more time stateside in between tours of duty in Iraq? What do Standing on One Principle, Voting on Another By Dana Milbank Thursday, September 20, 2007; Page A02 To paraphrase the immortal words of John Kerry, Sen. John Warner actually did vote to shorten the Iraq war before he voted to lengthen it. Just two months ago, the courtly Virginia Republican went to the Senate floor and sided with his Democratic colleague from the commonwealth, Jim Webb, on a plan that would shorten troop deployments in Iraq. Yesterday, he went to the same place to announce that he would now vote against the same bill. Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post. "I endorsed it," Warner said. "I intend now to cast a vote against it." With those dozen words, the former chairman of the Armed Services Committee put a surprise end to the latest efforts in Congress to limit the Iraq war. Democrats had been hoping that Warner, who last month endorsed the start of a pullout from Iraq, would bring enough Republicans with him to vote for their best plan to accelerate the troop withdrawal: Webb's plan to limit the troops' deployments. But this effort, like previous ones, ended in failure. "Senator Webb's amendment, I would say without any equivocation, is designed to help protect the concept of the all-volunteer force, and it was for that reason that I joined him," Warner explained in his discursive floor statement, which led to the conclusion that "I will have to cast a vote against my good friend's amendment." Pro-war Republicans, who had been grumbling about Warner's perfidy for weeks, suddenly celebrated him as an American hero. "Having now decided to change his vote on this particular amendment is of monumental importance and is the type of decision that makes all of us proud to serve in this great institution," Sen. Saxby Chambliss (Ga.) pronounced. Webb was rather less pleased to discover that Warner had retreated from their shared foxhole. The White House "turned up the political heat, and that made people, like particularly Senator Warner, uncomfortable," he deduced. And when did Webb learn of the betrayal? "Um," Webb replied, "he told me five minutes before the debate began this morning." Webb should not have been surprised. In January, Warner drafted a Senate resolution opposing President Bush's "surge" of additional troops into Iraq. Then, on Feb. 5, he voted against bringing up his own resolution for debate. The surge went ahead, unmolested. In the spring, Warner repeatedly flirted with opposition to Bush, but each time he returned to the fold. washingtonpost.com