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: Elroy who wrote (380925)	4/28/2008 10:12:32 AM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575709

I guess if you don't read my post, it probably says something like that. I read it. Essentially, what you said, is that the only qualification for the office is that you can convince people, by slick talking, to vote for you. Smart people can fall for slick speech. But track records don't lie. The man has no track record, other than his run for office. What track record there is -- his association with Wright, with terrorists, his extreme liberalism -- all disqualify him for the office. So? Didn't GB run a few businesses into the ground, and then become a very popular successful governor of Texas? Bush was very successful in his management of the Rangers organization, turned in a great profit for his partners and himself, and he would have never become governor EXCEPT for that proven ability. Peanut farmer Carter is the last "businessman president" that I can recall - you're telling me you like him? I honestly don't know that I was thinking when I voted for Carter. Look bud, there is no rubber stamp qualification for becoming president other than getting the most electoral votes. He's doing it. If he were so unqualified in the eyes of the average voter, he would be failing. No doubt about it -- if he gets the votes he's in. That does NOT, however, make him qualified. It simply means he was good at getting votes. The average voter is an idiot. Sorry, but that's the way it is. Even so, once the general election campaign is underway, hopefully, Obama's lack of any significant accomplishment will be pointed out. If not, he may win it. If he does, he may be a great president, or he may be a disaster for the country. We simply don't know because the only history we have on him is the last couple years, a time during which he was already running for president. I'm very concerned that he is an anti-American and may be a terrorist sympathizer. You're nuts. How did he get millions of his current followers without every leading? I find there is a huge difference between "leading" and "campaigning". Admit it, at least - Obama is intelligent. He is no more intelligent than Clinton, Carter, or dare I say it -- either George Bush. There is no evidence that would REMOTELY suggest that he is. You say you want to "listen to someone who is intelligent", but what you MEAN is that you want to "listen to someone who is a slick speaker." Clinton is intelligent. Carter was intelligent. Both George Bushs are intelligent. But Bush 43 is a lousy public speaker. You're conflating intelligence (or lack of it) with Bush's lousy speaking skills. You would have been a perfect candidate for Jim Jones to bring to Jonestown. You WANT to be led by a slick talker, and all you really care about is his ability to apply the Velvet Voice to get you to do what he wants you to do. The Obama Cult is calling.