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: combjelly who wrote (430245)	10/26/2008 8:51:55 AM
From: steve harris	Respond to of 1574446

Yet you are trying to pretend that Obama will do these things Don't have to pretend. Read Obama's books. Listen to his religious inspiration of 20 years. Look at his personal and professional friendships. Listen to his own VOICE over the years, they're on the Internet. Now we're suppose to believe Obama II is new and improved and in no way the same man who hated America in the past? Obama is two completely different people, one of the last twenty years, and the new one saying anything to get elected. You're swallowing the wrong one...

To: combjelly who wrote (430245)	10/26/2008 11:12:35 AM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574446

The amusing thing about your ravings on Obama is this sort of stuff has been policy for years under Smirk. I will agree that Bush has not, at all times, been as open as I would like. HOWEVER, he has sat for HOURS of personal interviews with reporters -- Bob Woodward, in particular, even after Woodward was critical of him in his earlier books. His presidency has been more of an "open book" than any in memory. So, while Bush is not a good public speaker and he knows it and thus avoids the open press conference, he cannot be accused of hiding from the media or stifling dissent. There is a difference. Bush has never, ever made efforts to stifle dissent. Never. Time and again he has embraced dissent, he has openly stated that he understands that many people disagree with him and that that is what America is about, and that he wouldn't have it any other way. I don't know if any president, not any I can remember, has been more understanding of and willing to take the dissent as Bush has. Contrast that with Obama, who has shut down access to media outlets, demanded that FACTUAL campaign ads be pulled, refused to take a position on the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine which is a process underway amongst the Democrats in Congress, and the list could go on. Consider for a moment Biden's remarks about Obama being "tested" and the ensuing remarks that supporters may not "agree" with how he handles it so they want everyone to stick with them even though they don't agree with Obama's handling of this presumed "crisis"? WTF is that about? Not only was the remark utterly bizarre in the first place, trying to a priori, defray the dissent on Obama's handling of an incident that hasn't occurred yet, well, that's just downright strange.

To: combjelly who wrote (430245)	10/26/2008 1:11:14 PM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1574446

The amusing thing about your ravings on Obama is this sort of stuff has been policy for years under Smirk. In 2004, most of his campaign rallies were invitation only. People have been ejected, even arrested for their t-shirts or bumper stickers. The press has been frozen out for years. Smirk never has an open press conference. Yet you are trying to pretend that Obama will do these things and it is some sort of ominous development for the country... It goes to show you that they knew Bush's behavior during the past 8 years was bad but they went along with it because it was their guy. They are the ultimate hypocrites.