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: TopCat who wrote (355979)	10/24/2007 2:51:25 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1578499

"In the original article that now has been revised." Bull! Here is Z's quote from the original article. Where does it say that the President was "too busy" to visit California. President Bush declared a federal emergency for seven counties, a move that will speed disaster-relief efforts. But White House press secretary Dana Perino said it was "very premature" to talk on Tuesday about a presidential stop in the region. In the original article. I read most of the original article and not just Z's quote. But let's say for a moment the original article did not say that.......why would a president stay away from a disaster in the most important state in the Union? California is very critical to the well being of this country in many different ways. What would be the only reason you couldn't make the trip? You don't ignore it unless you have prior business committments that allow you to claim you're too busy. Does everything have to be spelled out for you? What I find intriguing is that yesterday you were defending the president's decision not to go and now you're claiming he was planning to do the right thing after all by going. What's it like to be a partisan ideologue that puts one's party and ideology ahead of his country and fellow Americans, and twists and turns whenever his party demands it?