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: Tenchusatsu who wrote (716401)	5/20/2013 2:07:02 AM
From: i-node	4 Recommendations Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1583412

>> Come on, it was clear that the State Dept. didn't want to feed any allegations that the Obama administration was being soft on terrorism, especially in an election year. I do not believe Obama would have been reelected had these scandals been revealed in September. I recognize that's debatable, but that's my view. At the very least there is a significant chance of it, because these scandals are far bigger than the 47% remark, and the IRS scandal, in particular, would have countered Obama's attack on Romney's purported tax avoidance. Anyone who believes there is a significant chance it would have changed the election outcome ought to be outraged. I am; these were no ordinary politician lies. They were blatant, in-your-face, and historically significant.

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (716401)	5/20/2013 12:24:06 PM
From: Alighieri	1 Recommendation Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1583412

Come on, it was clear that the State Dept. didn't want to feed any allegations that the Obama administration was being soft on terrorism, especially in an election year. First, I am glad you mentioned the state department and not the WH...but let's assume that your allegation is correct....THAT'S A SCANDAL? Really? This doesn't compare to the war in Iraq because even Democrats were convinced that Saddam Hussein had WMD and would not hesitate to use them. And they were for the war before they were against it. Sure, but it was bush and his cabinet that sold the war with determination and fear mongering...and guess who voted against giving bush the authority to go to war? Al