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: greenspirit who wrote (273159)	7/11/2002 12:47:05 AM
From: Steve Dietrich	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

<<One person has already voted. One person has not.>> That strikes me as a pretty cheap dodge since there would be no vote if Bush had simply supported arming pilots in the first place. Bush is the reason congress needs to act. Yet you blame congress and not Bush. Here's something else you wrote about arming pilots: "It's idiotic to not arm the pilots! What on earth could be the logical reason behind it?" <<One person has built up a base of trust. One person has not>> What do you know about your congressman's base of trust? From what i read you you've judged his integrity based on that vote. <<Will you state whether you agree with the President?>> Well you've already presumed my position and wrote: "Always looking for some politically nasty angle aren't you liberals here? Let me ask you something seriously Steve. Don't you get tired of always being anti-something, instead of for anything?" But since you asked, i really don't have a strong opinion on this one. I'm generally in favor of gun control, but i'm certainly in favor of well-armed and well-trained police. So i really don't see anything wrong with armed marshals or armed pilots, but i also don't think it's nearly as critical as you do. As for Bush, if he thought not arming the pilots was the right thing knowing there'd be some back-lash i give him a lot of credit for that. However you seem to think he was caving to the liberal media, which i think is pretty hilarious, and don't think either of us can respect. But if you say that's why, you seem to know the man well. Can you explain why he signed the Campaign Finance bill thinking it was unconstitutional? Another cave to the liberal media? Steve