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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: koan who wrote (47291)	1/30/2008 11:31:32 AM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 541791

Its relevant, but not nearly as much as some people make it. Some less than intellectual leaders have been great leaders, while many very intelligent people where pathetic. Its also not nearly as relevant as some people made it, because there isn't any real evidence that Bush is stupid, or even noticeably less intelligent than most high level politicians. You could say that he lacks a towering intellect, and I'd agree but I don't think that is an issue. My beef with your beef, is to put it simply that its false, or at least seriously unsubstantiated. I see no sign of "lack of humanity", and I don't consider tax cuts to be elitist or otherwise a bad idea. My main beef with Bush is that he allowed spending to grow so much. Yes he wasn't the only factor in it happening, other politicians, and events in the world played a big role, but he didn't fight it, and in a number of cases he even initiated spending increases. Also even though he did cut taxes (which gets him points with me), he didn't simplify them. I'm not sure this is a beef exactly but its certainly a loss of a chance to get bonus points. Other than that I have the normal beefs with him that I'd be likely to have with almost anyone who might get elected.

To: koan who wrote (47291)	1/30/2008 12:00:26 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541791

he has followed an elitist philosophy making the rich richer and the poor poorer I scratched my head the previous time you used the word, "elitist." Almost posted a response. " ELITIST i.e. that his class had a right to live better than the unwashed masses-lo." I don't think that's the right word. The reason I reacted to your usage is the hatred found on some RW threads for elites. They have in mind something quite different. It seems to me that you're talking about the rich, not the elite. They have in mind the ivy covered intellectuals, who are hardly rich and are often political champions of the underdog. Perhaps you mean "plutocratic." As for the substance of your comment, the first I posted, his tax cut favored large families. [I noticed that because I didn't get a dime out of it. :/] Re your second comment, of course the rich have a right to live better. There's no point in striving to become rich if you can't live better. The word becomes meaningless otherwise.