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: E. T. who wrote (185960)	9/24/2001 9:30:04 AM
From: Thomas A Watson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Pro-choice if all about the right of a person to end an innocent human life. Abortion is a mother choosing to end the innocent human within her. Hitler passed laws that allowed the state to choose to end the life of others who were innocent. All human life is sacred or one can choose which human lives are sacred. There are those who are pro choice and advocate that men can choose to end an innocent human life because that life is not sacred. I do believe that Stalin was history's greatest maniacal mass murderer. Stalin was at it for decades. tom watson tosiwmee

To: E. T. who wrote (185960)	9/24/2001 9:44:32 AM
From: DMaA	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

More on why Canada not included in Presidential honor roll - they don't deserve it: Canada's war is already over Manley's promise of ground troops is less manly than it sounds Mark Steyn National Post Last Friday, while Canadians were demanding to know why they didn't rate a name-check in President Bush's speech, a unit of Britain's special forces, the SAS, came under enemy attack deep inside Afghanistan. There's the answer. If affronted Canucks would step back a moment, they'd see that the unusual feature of the Presidential address was that it was almost wholly free of the polite fictions of the foreign policy establishment. There was no mention of a "global coalition" or the United Nations, or, in military terms, of the French or Italians. In the Gulf War, the grand coalition's principal contribution was to tie one hand behind America's back. In Somalia, the Italians were giving nods and winks to the local warlord, General Aideed. In the Kosovo war, at least one French officer at NATO passed advance operational information on to the Serbs. The difference is that, in those conflicts, the U.S. military was engaged in saving far distant Muslims -- Kuwaiti Muslims, Bosnian Muslims, Somali Muslims, Albanian Muslims (as should be obvious but sadly isn't, the U.S. armed forces are the world's pre-eminent defender of Muslims) -- and it was felt politic to observe the pretense that the ideal expeditionary force should look like a global affirmative-action program. This time, however, Boston and St. Louis, Miami and Denver are at stake, and the Bush administration sees no reason to mortgage their future to any country that thinks de-mothballing a rusting frigate entitles it to a set of keys to the command module. The word from both countries is that this "coalition," on the battlefield, will be an Anglo-American affair: The U.S. is not interested in letting anybody else into the inner sanctums of joint command. The minimum entry qualifications are that a) you have a professional, modern military and b) you share America's war aims. The French meet the former but not the latter. The Mexicans the latter but not the former. The British meet both. The Canadians meet neither. nationalpost.com