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: TimF who wrote (198304)	8/24/2004 11:57:54 PM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1574499

He tore down soldiers and sailors and airmen and marines. He presented war crimes as commonplace and testified in support of people who lied about such crimes, and in some cases about even being in Vietnam. We know atrocities occurred in Vietnam. Its not a secret. Not only have other US military personnel attested to the US atrocities committed in Vietnam, Vietnamese who have emigrated to this country have attested to the horrors committed by both the Viet Cong and the Americans. Is this an example of shooting one of the messengers? Furthermore, if Kerry supported someone who was lying and Kerry did not know, how can you or anyone else condemn Kerry? Haven't you ever had someone tell you something that later you found out it was a lie AFTER you had told others? I have......it doesn't feel good but I don't want to be blamed for some else's dishonesty. Finally, below is what Dole said about Kerry; that Kerry only received superficial wounds in Vietnam. In fact, Kerry still carries shrapnel in his leg from Vietnam.......hardly a superficial wound. Dole is an important man in the GOP; why would he speak so irresponsibly about a war hero? I'll you.....the whole thing stinks BIG TIME. The attacks against Kerry's war record won't hunt but the hubris and mendacity of the people attacking him will........and it will end up hurting Bush........as it should! <font color=brown> "Dole also said Kerry had received only "superficial wounds" in Vietnam and had been taken out of combat as a result. "I respect his record. But three Purple Hearts and he never bled, that I know of. I mean, they're all superficial wounds. Three Purple Hearts and you're out," said Dole who himself was badly wounded in World War 2. "Maybe he should apologise to the other 2.5 million veterans who served," said Dole. "He wasn't the only one who was in Vietnam." Kerry still carries shrapnel in his thigh from one of his wounds in Vietnam. " nzherald.co.nz

To: TimF who wrote (198304)	8/25/2004 2:03:08 AM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1574499

<font color=brown>What is this? A flip flip or a flop flop? Is the Bush administration trying to have it both ways?<font color=black> ************************************************** 'Freedom for Everyone' Wednesday, August 25, 2004; Page A16 GOOD FOR Vice President Cheney. At a campaign breakfast in Iowa yesterday, Mr. Cheney was asked about his position on gay marriage. Noting that "Lynne and I have a gay daughter, so it's an issue our family is very familiar with," Mr. Cheney said, "My general view is freedom means freedom for everyone. . . . People ought to be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to." The question of whether that relationship should be given the status of marriage, Mr. Cheney, said, is "a matter for the states to decide." On one level, Mr. Cheney's statements aren't surprising. After all, he said as much during the campaign four years ago. And as Mr. Cheney noted, "the fundamental decision of what constitutes a marriage" has historically been left up to states. But since Mr. Cheney's last public comments, President Bush has asserted that it is imperative that the Constitution be amended to ensure that states don't recognize gay marriages.** In that sense, Mr. Cheney's public break with the president's position is remarkable -- and refreshing in an administration not known for its tolerance of public dissent. "The president makes policy for the administration," Mr. Cheney said, but he didn't try to disguise the fact that he disagreed with Mr. Bush on this one. We think Mr. Cheney has it right on the merits, too. The president contends that the country must take the momentous step of amending the Constitution to protect traditional marriage. A federal law already on the books, the Defense of Marriage Act, isn't safeguard enough, Mr. Bush says, because the law, which protects states from having to recognize a same-sex marriage from another state, could "be struck down by activist courts." But as Mr. Cheney noted yesterday, "most states have addressed this" -- most by means of statutes defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Meantime, the Defense of Marriage Act "has not been successfully challenged in the courts and may be sufficient to resolve the issue." In other words, the rush to enshrine discrimination in the Constitution is precipitous. It's also wrong. "Freedom for everyone," as Mr. Cheney so nicely put it, should mean freedom for men and women, no matter their sexual orientation, to share in the protections, benefits and responsibilities that only marriage can convey. washingtonpost.com