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: steve harris who wrote (202634)	9/17/2004 7:19:52 AM
From: Elroy	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1578288

Kerry's treason is the issue. If Kerry had committed treason he would be in prison. Freedom of speech is a US right. It means some citizens are going to say things other citizens don't like, and it makes for a more tolerant society. And criticizing the US and US policies just makes the country stronger. You take the criticisms that are legitimate, disregard the ones that are fluff, and improve the policies. This objection to criticism and objection to changing policies is another problem with the Bush administration. George thinks "strong leadership" is charging ahead with what he believes regardless of the criticisms of his policies. For a guy who lost the popular vote, his conviction in doing what he think is correct regardless of other's views is disturbing - appropriate for a dictator, but not appropriate for a "representatively chosen leader". And George thinks he will charge ahead with his policies even when they are failing, because changing the policy is a sign of "weak leadership". Adapting and changing policies as new information becomes available is a good thing, not a bad thing. I see Kerry's ability to change views and policies with the times as an attractive asset, not the flip-flop disadvantage that the Republicans spin on it. George currently has turned more people on the planet AGAINST the United States than perhaps any president before him, and that in and of itself is not a good thing. So is he going to do anything to reverse the planet's negative view of the US, or just charge on with current policies because he thinks they are "morally correct" and changing policies is a sign of "weak leadership"? Elroy PS- I don't care much about the military experience of either candidate frankly.