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: Mary Cluney who wrote (76843)	10/12/2004 10:37:12 AM
From: Bill	Respond to of 793744

Your opinions are interesting, but the facts speak for themselves.

To: Mary Cluney who wrote (76843)	10/12/2004 11:03:35 AM
From: SBHX	Respond to of 793744

Mary, Lets understand where Kerry stands on all the big topics : In 1991, Kerry voted against sending troops to Kuwait to reverse Saddam's invasion. This was a global effort that even France and Germany were anxious to move on, so on the Global Test for when it is just to use force, Kerry's position was even more anti-war, pro-appeasement than France and Germany. On SDI, In 1984, Kerry voted against every expenditure that made up the SDI components. Historians and even Soviet politicians agreed the SDI strategy was the main contributor to the economic collapse of the Iron Curtain. So Reagan was right. If Kerry had his way, the Soviet Union will still exist, anti nuclear demonstrations will still be burning effigies of US presidents in the streets of Europe (ok, fact is, us presidents have always been burned in effigy, you're not a real US president if the protesters in the streets of europe don't burn your effigy), the Berlin Wall would still be up. On placing missiles in Europe, Kerry saw the daily street protests in europe, when Reagan was burned in effigy. Kerry agonized about how americans are seen in europe and voted for a unilateral freeze. Kerry was so out of touch with reality that he was a keynote speaker in a nuclear freeze summit in Geneva two months before the historic Gorbachev Reagan summit that marked the beginning of the end of the soviet union On Nicaragua. When the US was debating whether to fund the contras rebellion against the Sandinistas, Kerry and Harkin travelled to meet Daniel Ortega. Kerry and Harkin came back and brought a letter from Ortega proclaiming non-alignment with the soviets. Even the left-wing democrats had a chuckle about that one. Daniel Ortega was to the core a true marxist in those days and only the naive or truly idealistic would see otherwise. On war in Grenada. Kerry criticized america's invasion as "a bully's show of force against a third world nation". Today, in an ingenious way to rewrite history, Kerry says he was supportive of the Grenada war and never 'publicly' opposed it. On the security fence in Israel. October 2003, Kerry said Israel’s construction was a barrier to peace. Later, perhaps seeing his jewish voters disappear, in Feb 2004, Kerry said the fence was legitimate act of self-defense, and President Bush is rightly discussing with Israel the exact route of the fence to minimize the hardship it causes innocent Palestinians. Which is the real Kerry? So which Kerry is the real Kerry? I think if you take the record in its entirety, the real Kerry is a true idealist, one who will pursue peace at all cost, the one who does not want to antagonize european protesters, the one who will join the world court out of fear that he too will be burned in effigy, the one who will ratify Kyoto out of a sincere desire to be liked by France and other europeans. I'm not saying a true pacifist and someone who wants to have lots of friends in the world is necessarily evil, but on the other hand, if your core is a true pacifist and appeasement at all cost, and then you present a face that is even more right wing of Bush, then that is dishonest. You do realize that during the debates, Edwards and Kerry continually talk with passion about killing terrorists, while I have yet to hear Bush or Cheney proclaim with vigour that they relish the prospect of killing. You see Mary, Kerry and Edwards are only talking about wanting to kill terrorists, while Bush and Cheney have killed them. Bush did not gloat about the killing, seeing them as a necessary evil that comes with the job of the CIC. So who is the real Kerry? I didn't see the real Kerry show up in the debates, I saw only a polished performer. Mary, do you truly believe he can make the tough decisions ahead?