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: Win Smith who wrote (124890)	2/1/2001 11:55:08 AM
From: Srexley	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

"Do you think it would be allowable to vote against Ashcroft based on his record?" I think if his record indicated that he would not uphold the law (that is the job of the AG, right?) then it would very allowable. If his record shows that his views are different than the liberal democrats, then I would say that proves my contention that they are voting against him because they do not share his views. That is not only not allowable imo, it is abhorant. They are saying, in essence HE DOES NOT SHARE MY VIEWS, SO HE WILL NOT UPHOLD THE LAW. "Would it be acceptable to vote against him because he introduced a constitutional amendment banning abortion, with no exception for rape or incest?" NO. I don't agree with that view, but it does not show that he would not uphold the law. If you think that should disqualify him, then you must believe it is ok to be prejudice against someone who does not think like you. Creepy attitude imo. "In light of that proposal, do you think his confirmation testimony was credible?" I did not see his whole testimony. I have seen the part where he sighted that Roe v Wade was the "settled law of the land" and he swore to uphold the law. I believe him, and the country will be watching. I actually think it is pretty naive to think he will not uphold that particular law. It would be political suicide. Scott