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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: haqihana who wrote (63263)	8/23/2004 5:12:41 PM
From: michael97123	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793586

I look at what has happened with the swiftys in boxing metaphors. The republicans with their stalking horseman, the switfys, gave kerry the body blows necessary early on which are designed to set him up for a later round knockout or a decision. But if the swiftys continue this body attack, the kerrys and terrys and hillarys may learn to defend and counter effectively as they did with Teflon bill. Now that kerry is softened up, go for the more elusive target, the 20 year old non record which we all agree on here. At the same time let the lefty dems vent their anger at bush by tearing up central park. That will get kerry votes, not. mie

To: haqihana who wrote (63263)	8/23/2004 5:24:48 PM
From: Gus	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793586

You don't get it. Kerry violated the unwritten code among warriors not to attack each other during war time and that is a major reason why since his 4 months in Vietnam, Kerry has been spectacularly wrong so many times about the big issues of the day, particularly national security. Some easily verifiable facts about Kerry's weak record: 1) 1980s - for nuclear freeze, for massive defense cuts, soft on communism in Central America 2) 1990s - voted against first gulf war, voted to cut intel budgets AFTER WTC I in 1993, supported Carter/Clinton appeasement of North Korea in 1994 and severely miscalculated NK's missile capability until it was too late in 1998. 3) 2000s - voted for the Iraq war before voting against the funding, was for troop realignment before he was against it, signaled to Al Qaeda and Iran that he was going to withdraw our combat troops within six months. And he wants to be commander in chief with a record like that? No sirreee, everything is on the table. Everything.

To: haqihana who wrote (63263)	8/23/2004 10:49:47 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 793586

I agree that the incidents in Nam, have been wrung out for every drop there is. It would be good for the nation if the subject was no longer the primary issue in the campaign Agreed. I think Bush's next line is obvious: "let's stop talking about the past, let's talk about real issues." There's been a reason why Kerry has preferred to talk about Nam rather than his record or his plans. If he can no longer do so, that's a plus for Bush. The beauty part for Bush is that the Swiftvets really are independent of him. They probably won't stop because they don't really care about Bush. They didn't work for Bush in 2000, or during the primaries. They just care about Kerry.