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: cirrus who wrote (12207)	9/24/2004 1:51:53 PM
From: Zakrosian	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 27181

What they won't tell you is that Kerry voted against the bill, not because of the bullet proof vests, but because it contained $3 billion for the Crusader field artillery system - which was later cancelled by Rumsfeld anyway. But that's the nature of most bills; they contain a lot of essential expenditures and a few that aren't. I don't think anyone's claimed that Kerry voted against the bill because of the vests. However, if his vote had been in the majority, then there would have been no funding for them. Sometimes you just have to accept the wasteful in order to get the necessary. As for your other points, if I shared your optimism, I'd gladly vote for Kerry. I just find it hard to believe that someone who has run as awful a campaign as Kerry has could effectively deal with a very irrational enemy. I'm not sure anyone can, but at least now the battle lines are in Iraq. I'd rather see al Qaeda and other Islamic terrorists focusing their energies there than on planning more attacks on the US. I agree that there's been too little done to make the borders safer, but as events have shown, there's a lot of opposition to anything that seems to curtail civil liberties. Plus, I can't say that I've seen any indication that illegal immigration from Central America has been related to any acts of terror in the US. Now, if Kerry were to come out and say that, as unfortunate as it may be, racial profiling will be employed more emphatically, then I'd consider supporting him.

To: cirrus who wrote (12207)	9/26/2004 9:42:14 PM
From: Ann Corrigan	Respond to of 27181

Edit

To: cirrus who wrote (12207)	9/26/2004 9:42:57 PM
From: Ann Corrigan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 27181

cirrus, your remarks below prove you are not really a political moderate. You cannot nuance, fine tune, "do the little things" when it comes to neutralizing the barbaric Islamic terrorists who have declared war on the USA. They respect only one thing--the steely resolve of an American President to eliminate them which is stronger than their sworn determination to kill us. That's why John Kerry would be dangerous in the White House. He habitually straddles every issue & never takes a strong stand on anything. That's exactly the wrong attitude for an American president. John Kerry would do nothing differently at the borders than Pres Bush. Democrats in Congress are afraid they'll lose the Spanish vote if they tighten border security. Republicans don't want to PO a large portion of their voting base by stopping the flow of dirt-cheap illegal labor. American workers are being screwed by both political parties on that issue. Neither candidate intends to make changes because they know Congress will not cooperate. Jimmy Carter tried to be a more "sensitive" President & the USA became the laughing stock of the world. Pres Clinton overlooked OBL's growing strength and as a result over 3000 Americans died on Sept 11. GW Bush on the other hand responded to that terrorist attack with the speed & strength that's required. If the USA starts nuancing every situation & issue with Kerry's indecisive management style...it would spell disaster for the American public. ******************************************************** <<<A vote for Kerry is not a vote for Islamic extremism. A vote for Kerry means we will wage physical war when necessary, but we will also wage an intellectual war against the radical Islamic schools in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan that brainwash kids into the ways of radical fundamentalism. We need to get to the next generation before the the fundamentalists, otherwise the war on terror will never end. The simple Bush approach - kill them - does nothing to address the long term causes of terrorism except help their recruiting drives. A vote for Kerry means we will do the little things that pay big dividends - making sure FBI agents in Arizona and Minnesota are heard when they raise terror warning flags, for example. A vote for Kerry means we will controlling our borders by denying work to illegal aliens - the DOJ has brought only 13 suits last year against firms for employing illegals - while 4,000 illegals cross the border every day from Mexico. How many are terrorists? A vote for Kerry means another attempt to settle the Israel/Palestinian issue, which Bush ignored for the first half of his term. The world is not a simple place, and while Bush's simple solutions are appealing, they are dangerous because of what they overlook.>>>