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: Alighieri who wrote (720846)	6/12/2013 2:15:01 PM
From: i-node	2 Recommendations Recommended By Taro Tenchusatsu Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1578892

>> No....my point is that bush was doing worse and you were not one of his critics on the subject. Well, there's not any evidence Bush was doing anything on this scale, save for one mention by USA Today that was without any supporting evidence. I'm sure you'll call it hypocrisy, but over the last five years I have changed my views about lots of things. As an example, I was opposed to Medicare Part D to begin with, then became mildly supportive when it worked out so well, but then went sour on it again after I saw how easily the fiscal integrity of it could be destroyed by a subsequent administration. It made me conclude that we just should not be trying to do these things at the federal level. I realize that's a little off topic but it is an example of a legitimate "evolution" of my thinking. Similarly, there are a lot of things that happened in the aftermath of 9/11 that, in my mind, were justifiable under the circumstances, which now do not look so justifiable. GWB was inherently trustworthy IMO, and I didn't have the foresight at the time to realize that these processes would become so entrenched in government that they would be permanent. I'll take the blame for that; perhaps I was naive, but I believed extreme measures were called for at the time. Today, they're less attractive -- in part, but not solely, because Barack Obama followed Bush as president. Obama, IMO, has really poor judgment and there are lots of things I would trust Bush with that I wouldn't trust Obama with. But it is entirely possible we'll have another president some day who is even less competent than Obama (I think the bar for entry to the presidency is at an all-time low). But it is a lesson learned -- when you start a government program, you have to recognize that (a) the program may well be never-ending, and (b) may be administered by someone later on who really doesn't meet one's own standards of integrity. Yesterday, Krauthammer, who I usually agree with, referred to it as hypocrisy -- which I really take issue with. Sometimes, there can be a fine line between hypocrisy and just learning from mistakes, and I would argue this is one of those instances. If we knew in 2002 or 2006 what we know about the program today, i..e, the scope of the data gathering and the details of its intended use, I'm not sure where I would have stood on it then, but looking back on it, I would have been more likely to oppose it. Still, if GWB said, "We have to do this, and here's why", I would be more apt to take it seriously than I am with the idiotic remarks Obama made on it last week.