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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mr. Whist who wrote (34663)	9/5/2000 1:49:43 AM
From: Mr. Whist	Respond to of 769667

I got on the Houston Chronicle's Web site at 12:44 a.m. CDT and couln't find the GWB obscenity story. (It was the #3 story in their political section; wasn't on the front page.) I guess they tried to bury it so as not to offend their big advertiser Bush supporters. Anyway, I did like the headline: "Remark aimed at reporter might end up biting Bush" I especially liked how they danced around the language, so as not to offend their readers: "Bush, standing on a stage outside of Naperville North High School, pointed reporter Adam Clymer out to his running mate, former Defense Secretary Dick Cheney. Then Bush described Clymer using a pejorative associated with the conclusion of an alimentary canal. "There's Adam Clymer, major-league a------ from the New York Times," Bush said. "Oh, yeah, he is, big-time," Cheney responded. END OF STORY PORTION Looks to me like this could come back and bite Dubya in the pejorative associated with the conclusion of an alimentary canal.

To: Mr. Whist who wrote (34663)	9/5/2000 7:56:02 AM
From: kvkkc1	Respond to of 769667

Personally, I believe that the NCO's need a large pay increase. They have much more responsibility than when I first entered the service. They are the backbone. Officers are paid enough. As far as the missile defense, think about it. If you know China, Russia, Iraq, N. Korea, India, Pakistan, and other unstable countries have nuclear capabilities, and may or may not have the delivery means, would you want a defense against it? I say yes. Why do we have to choose between the two when it comes to defense? The defense of our country is constitutionally mandated from the original version. I think the question we should be asking is whether we should finance Social Security, welfare, Medicaid or Medicare, which are relatively new entitlements that were never envisioned by our founding fathers.knc