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 : Ask Michael Burke -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Freedom Fighter who wrote (109781)	11/1/2007 7:56:43 PM
From: Pogeu Mahone	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 132070

Wayne You so predictable. You split every CH under the sun, then take the republican right wing position every single time as you claim to hate it.

To: Freedom Fighter who wrote (109781)	11/2/2007 4:51:32 AM
From: Knighty Tin	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 132070

Wayne, Again, you aren't paying attention. Hillary is not getting a free pass on the war and I am not the only one who calls her "Bush Lite." Most of the Democratic candidates are hawkish, which is why Congress has done diddly about correcting Bush's Folly. (Well, I guess he has more follies than Ziegfield) As usual, you lump the left as monolithic, when it is actually the thinking side of politics with a variety of opinions on many sides of the war issue. We don't march lock step or spread code words to scare the ignorati, like the right wing sheeple. One reason Bush is the worst President, at least since LBJ, is that he has lied us into the war. Hillary is part of the establishment that believed those lies. And, the fact that she has not apologized for buying into the Bush fantasy is the reason I am not backing her. Presidents usually don't lie bare-faced on vital subjects and it is the interests of the political ins to keep a little war going so you can stomp on all questions with the patriot card. I also have no idea where any of the candidates in either party stand on immigration, except for the fringe candidates like Tancredo, Gravel and Paul. However, the war and immigration are not the only issue, and it is obvious that Hillary is the most competent person to address those issues. With the other candidates, we risk another 4 years of not being able to walk and chew gum at the same time. Obama is very vague. Giuliani doesn't really understand any issue other than one. As Biden said, all of his sentences are "noun, verb and 9/11." And I'm not too certain Rudy understands that issue. Mitt appears to be one of these rich, handsome guys we like to nominate for no good reason. McCain, Dodd and Biden are the most skilled on foreign policy, but they are in nowheresville with the voters. If you can blame me for what happens after a pullback (nobody is calling for a pullout. Redeployment is the closest the Democrats come to that, and all of the cut and run crap is GOP propaganda) from Iraq, I can certainly blame you for not supporting a pullout. You are either a part of the solution or part of the problem. Wow, haven't used that one since the 70s. The great weakness for Islamic fundamentalists and other terrorists is that, if they succeed, they have to come out in the open. Our only difficulty with handling them is that they are hard to find or we don't want to step on the toes of allies (Pakistan and Turkey). Once they are in the open, we can Saddam, Trujillo, Allende or Noreiga them and their supporters with great ease.