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 : THE WHITE HOUSE -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Gersh Avery who wrote (10285)	11/3/2007 10:49:35 AM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 25737

It might come down to the difference between taking ineffective actions, spinning your wheels (losing vast amounts of money in the process, and losing ground in the strategic contest) vs. pursuing effective policies and taking effective actions....

To: Gersh Avery who wrote (10285)	11/3/2007 1:26:46 PM
From: GROUND ZERO™	Respond to of 25737

I think that "do nothing" is far from what he would aim for. I'm pretty sure that he would hunt bad guys in contrast to pretending that he was. That's not what he said during those debates, and your comments only further make my point... to this day, you can only say "I think" about what he might say, and "I'm pretty sure" about what he would do... this is solid proof that not even his closest followers have any definitive or clear idea what he's all about... he only proclaimed that 9/11 was the "blowback" for our presence in the middle east, nothing more than that... he never once said that terrorists or terrorism must be hunted or extinguished... even if he didn't mean to say that 9/11 was our own fault, that was indeed the underlying message he conveyed... clearly, if he wants to draw a bigger following, then I strongly suggest that he make his position on terrorism plain and clear in big bold letters ASAP... GZ