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: Travis_Bickle who wrote (102783)	2/2/2009 10:31:32 AM
From: Suma	Respond to of 543754

I keep urging those of you who post here to watch or tape Bill Moyers Journal on Friday nights. He is on twice so one can tape him at 10pm am or 1 am. or later. This week's guests whose names I did not get but the one woman was a professor NYU in history the other helped the administration during the LBJ times. Both have written recent books. If anyone wants to know I can find out this information. It was what they both said that was salient to me. Both are of the opinion that Obama ( AND THEY ARE PRO OBAMA ) using more missiles in Afghanistan is a huge error.. He had promised to reach out and understand the conflict there.. By sending more troops and killing more Afghans he is only starting a repeat of the Viet Nam War when LBJ escalated on the word of McNamara. These people are not changed by bombs. McNamara thought that if we bombed the CONG enough we could make them surrender . It had the opposite effect. It made them fight harder. The escalation of the Afghan conflict is an error. If Russia and a hundred and fifty thousand men and the Afghan army to boot could do nothing what are we going to do. Just make more terrorists and swing people to the Taliban... The newspaper said after this missile strike. President Obamas Kiss..... to us.

To: Travis_Bickle who wrote (102783)	2/3/2009 12:40:25 AM
From: Cogito	Respond to of 543754

>>Invading Iraq was well received by the majority of the public, doesn't mean it made sense.<< Seminole - I was not using the public perception of the bill as an argument in its favor. Nor would I. I was merely responding to Quehubo's statement. He said that the bill would be getting a better reaction from the public if it weren't more focused on welfare than on infrastructure spending. Less than 1/4 of the bill, as passed by the House, is directed toward social spending, and the bill is getting a generally warm reception from the public. Those are facts, not arguments. - Allen