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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Windsock who wrote (153232)	10/13/2002 11:51:14 AM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1586199

Sounds like you are buying the dogma of "being attacked" and opponents are "pacifists" who lack patriotism DOGMA???!!! It isn't merely "dogma", and we have a pile of rubble and 3,000 dead to prove it. Your statement is an insult to every one of those who died in the attack. Pacifists lacking patriotism? Well, some do. Jim McDermott is NOT a patriot. Hanoi Jane is NOT a patriot. Pacifism is fine when moderated with good judgment. After being attacked on our own soil, being a pacifist is, at best, reflecting a lack of good judgment, and can more aptly be classified as being stupid. I'm against the politicizing of the war in the way the Democrats have done it (for example, trying to suggest that there was impropriety in publishing a photograph of the president on 9/11, or the way Dascle has politicized it (and everything else)). For many of us, foreign policy is a much greater issue in evaluating a president. This is the reason I believe Clinton's administration was an abject failure while Bush's is a raging success (thus far). While you are clearly not amongst them, there are a huge number of Americans who breathed a sigh of relief knowing that Al Gore or Bill Clinton was not our president on 9/11. Thus, to me it would be crazy to NOT consider these matters when deciding whom to elect. Do we elect those who support our president or those who obstruct him? For me, this is a really simple question that overshadows party affiliation: DOES THIS CANDIDATE FULLY SUPPORT PRESIDENT BUSH, OR LIKE TOM DASCHLE OR PATRICK LEAHY OR CHUCK SCHUMER, IS HE SIMPLY OBSTRUCTING? I'm sick of having great Republican leadership watered down by incompetent liberals in congress, and horrible liberal leadership supported by the same incompetents.