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: i-node who wrote (416913)	9/13/2008 11:47:50 AM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1579138

It was an intentionally vague reference by Gibson. Unfortunately, she was not strong enough in her knowledge There you go......she was not "strong enough in her knowledge" period. The top of the ticket is brain addled and the bottom is extremely uninformed. Why are either running for office?

To: i-node who wrote (416913)	9/13/2008 1:22:39 PM
From: Alighieri	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1579138

There is a consensus, including the person who first used the term, that she answered the question reasonably well given the ambiguity of it. I'm inclined to give her the benefit of that doubt. Of course you are, but as anyone who follows politics the controversial part of the national security document, and the one topic that generated a huge response was the pre-emptive doctrine. As soon as gibson asked the question, i knew what he was talking about and I am a common citizen. She didn't have a clue. I mean, c'mon...she has responded to a question about iraq with an answer that should be shocking even for a governor...the head of the national guard has not focused on the war in iraq much...but she is cited as having experience as the head of the national guard...give us a break here. Al