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: SBHX who wrote (79326)	10/21/2004 12:15:26 AM
From: Sig	Respond to of 794030

<<<Ok. Let's debate who Kerry is. I never shook his hand, so I can't say I know him that well, but he is a public figure and his voting pattern is a matter of public record.>>> Take all of Kerry's positions as you report and in summation he is an "againer". He will take an adverse position to any popular argument and in a way that will make himself stand out and be noticed. He presents no long term guiding principles or much concern for the future of our society. He does not think seriously beyond the election, his actions are based only on winning today. After which all would be well, for him. If Congress wants money for our Military, he will tell them they are wrong- and vote against it. Sig

To: SBHX who wrote (79326)	10/21/2004 1:09:34 AM
From: KLP	Respond to of 794030

Re Kerry: Cutting the intelligence budgets has to be one of the most damning things he's done, or not done....Nice work, SbH! 7. Kerry has been outstanding at various times in his career to cut funding from the intelligence and military. His words on this are again a matter of public record : On cutting intelligence : (1997) “[W]hy it is that our vast intelligence apparatus, built to sustain America in the long twilight struggle of the Cold War continues to grow at an exponential rate? Now that that struggle is over, why is it that our vast intelligence apparatus continues to grow even as government resources for new and essential priorities fall far short of what is necessary? Why is it that our vast intelligence apparatus continues to roll on even as every other government bureaucracy is subject to increasing scrutiny and, indeed, to reinvention? . Yet Kerry's website now says this : John Kerry understands that intelligence information is the key to disrupting and dismantling terrorist organizations and that we need to improve our intelligence capabilities, both domestically and internationally, in order to win the war on global terrorism --- great but empty words since he did cut 80% from the intelligence budget. Notice that the failure of intelligence is the primary cause of 9/11. (1) frontpagemag.com (2) washingtontimes.com (3) newsmax.com (4) powerlineblog.com (5) boston.com (6) nationalreview.com (7) georgewbush.com washingtonpost.com militaryworld.com

To: SBHX who wrote (79326)	10/21/2004 6:37:42 AM
From: Lane3	Respond to of 794030

Let's debate who Kerry is. I never shook his hand, so I can't say I know him that well... Let's not. I don't know him that well, either, so that's not promising in terms of quality and utility.

To: SBHX who wrote (79326)	10/21/2004 11:46:54 AM
From: greenspirit	Respond to of 794030

Outstanding post! Thanks for going through the effort, it sure puts things in clearer perspective. The quote "He can run but he cannot hide from his votes" fits nicely.

To: SBHX who wrote (79326)	10/21/2004 12:46:38 PM
From: Mary Cluney	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 794030

his voting pattern is a matter of public record. To be fair, you have to put Kerry's voting pattern into perspective. As a US Senator, he is one of 100 members. A US Senator is not effective if he is a loner. He is most effective when part of a team - when he votes as part of a political block. In that case, you would have to look at it from a Democratic Party perspective. He was a member of a party that gave us the Clinton Administration. They showed fiscal responsibility. They balanced the budget and they gave to this administration a record budget surplus. But all this is really an obfuscation. The real issue that is being posed here is his vision for national security. In that regard he poses a clear alternative to George W. Bush. I don't have to rehash that. Everyone on this thread knows what those differences are. For Neocons, however, there is an even more complex issue - and that is, how will Kerry's Position effect Israel. IMO, Kerry does not have any intentions for selling out Israel. I think that is a genuine belief. In any case, I think he is also smart enough to know that if he did sell out Israel he would never get elected even to be a dog catcher. Having said that however, I can understand Neocon concerns with respect to the safety of Israel. I do think Kerry's position would pose some degree of risk that Neocons would not have to be concerned with George Bush at the top of the ticket. I would think that Kerry would feel that Israeli interests would be better served in the long term if he were more even handed with respect to the Palestinians. I would guess most Israeli's and Neocons are not buying that line of thought. That is going to be a tough sell for Kerry.