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: Srexley who wrote (207792)	12/7/2001 2:08:14 AM
From: Neeka	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 769670

Thanks Srexley. I managed to see part of Ashcrofts appearance before the judiciary committee earlier (at least I think it was the judiciary committee?). Rather than opposition, he was asked intelligent questions, and very eloquently outlined the constitutionality of the Military Tribunal. It is quite obvious that he has no intention of targeting Americans as some of our enemies such as Molly Ivins would have us believe. What is apparent is that even here in America, our enemies reside and walk among us. Yes, Molly Ivins right to free speech is protected by our Bill of rights, but IMO Molly Ivins has stepped over the line and has some other agenda other than protecting our "cherished freedoms". What that is I don't know? She tries to correlate the actions against terrorists that Ashcroft proposes to the actions of a 35 year old FBI during the Vietnam war when there is no comparison. She goes on to illustrate her hate for the FBI, the Babtists, two congressmen, and Rush Limbaugh. Just by her words it is easy to see that she would hate and condemn anyone that doesn't agree with her point of view. For isn't it ironic that she finds even the most far right of conservatives Bob Barr, honorable because he believes what she believes. Can't even blame this one on the liberals. Hers is a typical tactic, agreeing to embrace anyone who believes what you believe and condemn the rest, even those who may be harmed by future acts of terror, and the hell with what is good for the country. She condemns Ashcroft for proposing Constitutional amendments while a Senator as if those were the actions of someone "unhinged". Talk about picky. I wonder if she is mad at the number or content of amendments proposed? Who does Ms. Ivins think should broach the subject of constitutional amendments? With all due respect and God Bless America Ms. Ivins I cannot condemn too strongly individuals that spread lies and make dangerous innuendos about those with the power to keep me and my loved ones safe from madmen. I also condemn those with so little respect for the law that they use public forums to spread their hateful dogma in hopes of duping those who look up to reporters and editors for information they can count on to make the right decisions about their government. She is an enemy pure and simple and anyone that can't see that is blind or thinks of themselves as above others. M

To: Srexley who wrote (207792)	12/7/2001 8:59:59 AM
From: bonnuss_in_austin	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 769670

Right on, Molly Ivins!!!! Thank "God" -g- ... for journalists like her! She's one of the best ever ... colorful character IRL as well. bia

To: Srexley who wrote (207792)	12/7/2001 9:16:26 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

Molly is the very epitome of "knee jerk". Any proposal which might augment police powers and make it harder for criminal conspiracies to be hatched is automatically equated with Nazism. If we had had surveillance on the People's Temple early on, maybe dozens (or was it hundreds) of people would be alive. It is well- known that mosques have been the center of several of terrorist conspiracies in the last decade, like the first attempt to bomb the World Trade Center. But Molly is content to ridicule and jape, as if there were no rationale to any of this........