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: Lane3 who wrote (52796)	3/10/2008 12:04:33 PM
From: cnyndwllr	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 543205

Lane, re: "When you evaluate risk you don't just look at what they believe or what they want. You look at their ability to carry it out. McCain would not have the wherewithal to carry out those beliefs in any grand way. He wouldn't have the money or the troops or the backing of the people and the Congress. That's what I said upstream and I'm sticking with it." Good, then you can explain how it is that Bush/Cheney have been able to not only continue but to increase our presence in Iraq while the majority of Congress and the American people oppose the war, the military is using bailing wire to keep it going, and our treasure is getting more and more depleted? Cause I'd really like to know how McCain wouldn't be able to carry on, especially in light of the fact that the foreign policy theme that he runs on will be "no surrender." And with respect to the S. Court, many critically important cases have hung on a razor thin, one vote balance and just a little more conservatism on the court will be the straw that breaks the camel's back. For that reason I strongly suggest that it's a mistake to generalize and dismiss a move to the right by simply characterizing it as moving "not so much." Ed

To: Lane3 who wrote (52796)	3/10/2008 1:29:25 PM
From: Cogito	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 543205

>>I'll suggest to you the same thing I used to suggest to the folks on PfP when they went on about the danger from Islamicists--"they want to kill us all." When you evaluate risk you don't just look at what they believe or what they want. You look at their ability to carry it out.<< Karen - Those lines spurred a thought, and I wanted to share it. There are elements within our society who believe that the gravest threat facing us as a nation is "Islamofascism". They believe that the radical muslims want to kill us all, and that we have to strike first or we will surely perish. Of course, I agree that they don't have the means to kill us all. They don't have the support of other muslims, for the most part. They might be able to strike us once in a while, perhaps very infrequently in a spectacular manner, but they are no threat to our existence. What occurred to me after reading your post is that we are really no threat to their existence, either. We don't have the means to "hunt them down and kill them" as George Bush has said we will do, despite having far greater resources than they have. We can only strike them once in a while, sometimes in a spectacular manner. - Allen