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 : Don't Blame Me, I Voted For Kerry -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: American Spirit who wrote (1682)	2/11/2004 7:55:59 PM
From: Ann Corrigan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 81568

Look for the Kerry Label...hmmmm....hmmmm...catchy tune. AS, Did you know that the most formidable military person in Bush Adm has defended GW's record more than once in past few days?: >>Powell Blasts McAuliffe's 'Scurrilous Attack' on Bush Military Record Secretary of State Colin Powell blasted Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe on Friday for claiming that President Bush went AWOL from the National Guard in 1972, saying the DNC chief's attack was "scurrilous." Asked about McAuliffe's allegation, the former Joint Chiefs chairman and Vietnam veteran told radio host Sean Hannity that Democrats should "get on to the issues of the day and not reach back to these kinds of scurrilous attacks, especially against a commander in chief who is fighting wars right now in active theaters in Afghanistan and in Iraq and on the global war against terrorism." "It's very disturbing and I wish this kind of attack wouldn't take place," Powell complained. Speaking of Bush and Democratic presidential front-runner John Kerry, the one-time top military man told Hannity: "Both men served. They served honorably. They got honorable discharges. They both stood up when their country needed them."<< Then today while Colin Powell was giving testimony in congress, a foolish rep included wording about GW's national guard service in a question to Powell & the latter answered "I have no intention of discussing that since you don't know what you're talking about." Congressman said "I don't know what you mean." Powell answered--"don't go there!" HA! This is bootiful. Former Chairman of Joint Chiefs defending Pres Bush's military record...let's see how Kerry's smear squad respond.

To: American Spirit who wrote (1682)	2/11/2004 8:18:47 PM
From: Ann Corrigan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 81568

>>Spend five minutes with the guy and you know there's not a weak thought in his mind.<< Those 5min certainly mesmerized you--it's fascinating. I don't understand why. He's not good looking, boredom sets in after 30sec of speech, he has history of marrying wealthy women, he bad-mouthed soldiers he once fought with(for gain of future political career). WHY? Oh well, the authentic, auburn-haired JFK had that effect on followers as well. Just remember, it's not necessary to vote for someone just because he has inspired romantic feelings. Kerry will be perfectly happy riding his motorcycle & enjoying Teresa's mansion, ski lodge & beach cottage. Don't inflict him on your country just because he wants his boyhood dream to come true.

To: American Spirit who wrote (1682)	2/11/2004 8:42:49 PM
From: PROLIFE	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 81568

WAFFLEKING KERRY AT IT AGAIN: Kerry Signed Letter Backing Gay Marriage By JOHN SOLOMON, Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON - Democratic presidential hopeful John Kerry (news - web sites), who opposes gay marriage and hints he might support a limited ban, just two years ago signed a letter with other congressional colleagues urging the Massachusetts legislature to drop a constitutional amendment outlawing homosexual nuptials. And when Kerry opposed federal legislation in 1996 that defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman, he compared the law to 1960s efforts in the South to criminalize interracial marriages and accused his supporters of engaging in the "politics of division." news.yahoo.com. "This is an unconstitutional, unprecedented, unnecessary and mean-spirited bill," Kerry declared then even as 85 senators and President Clinton (news - web sites) supported the measure. As his home state grapples with a historical Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling that could permit homosexual marriages, Kerry's own comments on the campaign trail are being compared by Republicans, Democratic rivals and even his own constituents to his prior record. Kerry's campaign said Wednesday he has consistently opposed gay marriage while also rejecting legislation, like the 2002 amendment, that he believed jeopardized the civil rights of gays. "John Kerry's position has been crystal clear. He opposed a proposed constitutional amendment in Massachusetts in the summer of 2002 because a sweeping proposal would have threatened civil unions, health benefits, or inheritance rights for gay couples that represent equal protection under the law," spokesman David Wade said. "John favors civil unions, not gay marriage. It's that simple," he said. The emergence of gay marriage as an issue has placed several candidates — including Howard Dean (news - web sites) who signed a civil-unions bill during his Vermont governorship — in a delicate balancing act of trying to avoid looking bigoted while placating heterosexual and religious voters. Kerry has left open the possibility he could support a Massachusetts ban on gay marriage if it recognized civil unions and other protections as an alternative. But in 2002, he joined his congressional colleagues in opposing Massachusetts' last effort to outlaw gay marriage. The letter, organized by Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., was sent on congressional stationery on July 12, 2002 as the Massachusetts legislature first considered a constitutional amendment that limited marriage to "only the union of one man and one woman." "We believe it would be a grave error for Massachusetts to enshrine in our Constitution a provision which would have such a negative effect on so many of our fellow residents," Kerry and 11 other members of the state's congressional delegation wrote. The legislature's 2002 effort failed, but that debate renewed in the last week after the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled gays were entitled to the same marriage as heterosexuals unless the state constitution is changed. Lawmakers debated a possible amendment again Wednesday. Frank and most of the other congressmen who signed the 2002 letter sent a new letter last month again opposing the constitutional amendment, but this time neither Kerry nor Sen. Edward Kennedy signed. Frank said Wednesday he didn't ask Kerry or Kennedy to sign this time "because I was in such a hurry," the openly gay congressman said. Frank said Kerry has always been clear to him that he opposes gay marriage but wants homosexuals to have equal protection under the law through civil unions, and other legislation. Kerry has said that he believes marriage — both legally and religiously — should be reserved between a man and woman. "I believe and have fought for the principle that we should protect the fundamental rights of gay and lesbian couples — from inheritance to health benefits. I believe the right answer is civil unions. I oppose gay marriage and disagree with the Massachusetts Court's decision," Kerry said last week after the court ruling. When asked whether he might support Massachusetts' constitutional amendment, he said it was possible. "It depends entirely on the language on whether it supports civil union and partnership or not. I'm for civil union, I'm for partnership rights. I think what ought to condition this debate is not the term marriage, as much as the rights that people are afforded," Kerry told National Public Radio on Monday. Back in 1986, Kerry gave an impassioned 10-minute speech on the Senate floor against an earlier effort in Congress to define marriage only as a union between a man and a woman. He was one of just 14 senators to vote against the Defense of Marriage Act. "This is a power grab into states' rights of monumental proportions," Kerry said at the time, accusing Republicans of using legislation to drive a wedge between Americans. "It is ironic that many of the arguments for this power grab are echoes of the discussion of interracial marriage a generation ago. "It is hard to believe that this bill is anything other than a thinly veiled attempt to score political debating points by scapegoating gay and lesbian Americans," he added, while noting his own personal objections to gay marriage.