SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Bearcatbob who wrote (440661)8/15/2011 8:03:53 AM
From: TideGlider1 Recommendation  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 794513
 
Bear, I have to agree in a limited fashion and by that I express an analogy in the following:

If a family has a car the burns far too much oil they simply cannot say.."that's it no more oil". What she should have expressed was we will add oil this last time to avoid seizing the engine and then we will repair the engine.
Perhaps in some way she could have acknowledged the refusal to vote for the debt extension was a bargaining ploy. There is no doubt Obama would drive the car without oil and ruin it forever.

I am certain no matter who is president if we don't seriously curb spending and reduce forward expenses in Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security we will lose the family car.



To: Bearcatbob who wrote (440661)8/15/2011 9:19:54 AM
From: Bill11 Recommendations  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 794513
 
What you are arguing is how practical her position is. It's not. It's clearly an intractable stance based on principle.

But to call her nuts is, I think, nuts. Any woman who has raised five children, taken in 23 foster children, gone to law school and practiced law, won a congressional seat, and thrust herself onto the national political scene is certainly not nuts, my friend.