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 (519770)	10/10/2009 1:52:11 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1574616

>> Bush's rhetoric was always empty. This is nonsense. In March of 2001 -- little more than a month after Bush took office, they began work on undoing the massive damage caused by the Clinton Agreed Framework. But it was a train wreck. Yes, Bush ultimately failed to deal with NK in the end, but early on the rhetoric was anything but empty. When Bush finally caved on NK he was essentially a lame duck and really had no choice. To suggest that the rhetoric on the subject of Iran was "empty" is silly. The Iraq War, whether you're a supporter or opponent, had a significant Iran component. This is not "empty rhetoric". To me, empty rhetoric is when you say something that is not backed up by action or at least credible threat of action. Obama has made one sweeping statement after another with not even the slightest intent of actually DOING anything, and in fact, he has repeatedly forfeited America's ability to act on many of these major issues. While Bush at least tried to deal with these issues, there is no evidence to suggest that Obama has done anything at all. That's empty rhetoric.