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 : Proof that John Kerry is Unfit for Command -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Richnorth who wrote (3506)	8/27/2004 5:11:36 PM
From: Cage Rattler	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 27181

No you don’t – I will admit that Kerry needs transformation as you imply, but the premise that “the office transforms the man” is unacceptable. I think the old saying “opportunity makes a fool of the ill prepared” is a more comfortable fit for Kerry, Kerry’s concerns are not of public servitude – rather his own aspirations. Past performance is the best and only predictor of future performance. As for how he would deal with the terrorists,<<How exactly he would do this I cannot say as I cannot look directly into his mind.>> You have no idea what he plans nor how he intends to accomplish those unknowns. Yet you want to give it a try. Not even going to address that. You say the <<Bush's plan has failed to produce positive results over the last four years>> Some things have been successful others less effective than one might have hoped. There are obvious, sub-optimal objective improvements in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Libya, and possibly Saudi Arabia. There is deterioration in other places. All in all, the world is a safer place today than it would have been without the Bush doctrine – I did not say it was safer than four years ago. The relative safety debate is unanswerable. If you believe nothing else know this, tactical objectives are seldom the obvious expression of strategic goals. That goes for the published goals and objectives we read in the news. Concerning “de-legitimize" <<the claims of the terrorists against America by diplomatic means with the participation of other nations.>> <<Trust and Verify.>> Wow, that sounds like something was tried with Iran and North Korean nuclear programs. I’m not sure that’s really going to work. Clinton tried that, right? <<the TRUST-BUT-VERIFY attitude of Reagan coupled with the readiness to strike to defend America, if ever, whenever and wherever it is appropriate, is a viable way to go.>> are the words of an idealist strategy not Kerry’s. An idealist draws a line in the sand – and says “step over it and I’ll cut your leg off” kind of approach. But Kerry is a strategic realist, i.e. minimize your loss and try to maximize your gain. That is perhaps the fundamental denominator of his rise to power. I admit continued spending is not a good thing; yet how to stop it is beyond me. I am possibly simplistic on this one. I think radical Islam is the enemy of choice and that the primary focus must be on self-preservation of Judeo-Christian civilization. Therefore I conclude what ever is required should be spent to defeat terrorism. I agree with Greenspan, let’s watch the budget carefully. But, the economy should be strengthened by cutting frivolous public expenditures. For example stop footing the bills for millions and millions of illegal immigrants (not a Bush strong point), cut welfare benefits for undeserving claimants (and if you don’t know of such violations, shame on you), stop supporting parasitic criminals in prisons place them into productive public service like the chain gangs of Alabama and that goes for juvenal offenders as well… stop supporting unwed breed sows with ADC tax dollars. Need I go on. You see when you say America can ill afford to let Bush continue with his extravagant and reckless spending ways.>> you really mean defense spending don’t you? You see when you really try to describe Kerry’s plans all we seem to find is criticism of Bush and pleasant, wishful generalizations that say nothing or conflict with his past claims and positions. Discussing his Senate record and his elusive positions ARE his real weak points – the Swift Boats are just the lead cartoons. Don't worry those will be served up after the RNC. :^) Ciao P.S. Let’s try to keep to one subject area at a time.