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 : Al Gore vs George Bush: the moderate's perspective -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (1530)	10/7/2000 7:00:23 PM
From: Frank Griffin	Respond to of 10042

I live in a city that has a high military presence. Today we had a comprehensive article regarding military opinion of the Clinton administration. As you know, active duty military are not supposed to be political activists. However, we have three retired Admirals in our city and they are all for Bush. Also, there is a quote that Bush supporters run 8 to 1 in the military. Admiral Kevin Delaney said, "For officers who spent much of their career during the Reagan defense buildup, the existing administration and its military budget defers too much. A shortage of spare parts, an unwillingness to keep equipment up to date and the decision of many of the more experienced sailors to leave the Navy threaten to make the service hollow. Retired Admiral Michael Kalleres who oversaw the Navy's sea-lift command said he recently attended a function put on by the Roosevelt family for the commissioning of the new destroyer named after Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt. He said there were several hundred people assembled and one of the Roosevelt family asked how many were democrats and only a handful raised their hands. Kalleres said his pro-Bush sentiment was also shaped by his feeling that the Clinton-Gore administration has not fought for veterans. Furthermore, those in the military pledge to uphold duty, honor and country, but Clinton and Gore have failed to uphold all three. Jonathon Howe, a retired admiral echoed the sentiment. He said he has voted for democrats and republicans in the past but the Clinton-Gore presidency evokes a visceral reaction that works against the Democrats. For officers, the president isn't just another politician, making promises he doesn't keep. To them, the President is the commander-in-chief and they evaluate him according to the standard they use for their own senior commanders. For officers, "the most important thing is honor and integrity," Howe said. The Monica Lewinsky scandal and Clinton's impeachment were viewed by many as evidence the president didn't live up to this standard. "I personally think there needs to be a clean sweep," Howe said. "We just have had too much in this last eight years."

To: TimF who wrote (1530)	10/8/2000 1:51:31 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Respond to of 10042

Not just during the first trimester, but even in the third. NNNNNNNNNNNYETTTTT!!!! Would would care to try double or nothing??.... <VBG> members.aol.com "3. State criminal abortion laws, like those involved here, that except from criminality only a life- saving procedure on the mother's behalf without regard to the stage of her pregnancy and other interests involved violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects against state action the right to privacy, including a woman's qualified right to terminate her pregnancy. Though the State cannot override that right, it has legitimate interests in protecting both the pregnant woman's health and the potentiality of human life, each of which interests grows and reaches a "compelling" point at various stages of the woman's approach to term. Pp. 147-164. (a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician. Pp. 163, 164. (b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health. Pp. 163, 164. (c) For the stage subsequent to viability the State, in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and **even proscribe**, abortion except where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother." It is that last comment that is what is driving the pro-abortionist to utterly defend to the last breath against a ban on Partial Birth Abortion. If the State can make the appropriate and logical argument that terminating a preganancy in the last trimester cannot be done without placing the women's health in more danger than just carrying the baby to term, it will eliminate the an entire trimester for performing elective abortions for the purpose of mere birth control. And since there is no logical reason that a PBA procedure can be undertaken, it stands as logical step in pursuing the state's vested interest in preserving the potentiality of life. Regards, Ron