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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: kikogrey who wrote (650595)	10/23/2004 11:17:39 PM
From: jim-thompson	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

So you don't care... you want to elect a person without Honor and Stolen Valor? Do you want to pay the security for all those houses that the heinz lady owns that John Kerry might stay in?

To: kikogrey who wrote (650595)	10/24/2004 4:19:44 PM
From: Hope Praytochange	Respond to of 769670

johnflipkerry - 4:12 PM ET October 24, 2004 (#51140 of 51140) Kerry strategists, meanwhile, canceled plans to visit Colorado this week, suggesting his campaign was giving up on that state, even though Kerry was just there. ------ Tom Raum reported from Washington and Nedra Pickler from Fort Lauderdale, Fla., with additional reporting from Jennifer Loven in Waco, Texas. nytimes.com [...]

To: kikogrey who wrote (650595)	10/24/2004 4:32:29 PM
From: Hope Praytochange	Respond to of 769670

Military Bullish on Bush Posted Oct 22, 2004 President Bush's overwhelming edge in popularity among men and women serving in the U.S. armed forces could tip the race to the incumbent in a close election. A National Annenberg Election Survey of military personnel and their families indicates that this segment of the population is far more likely to view President Bush favorably than Sen. John Kerry. In fact, 69% have a favorable opinion of Bush while only 29% have a favorable opinion of Kerry. The survey, released October 15, also shows that 94% of the troops on active duty say they intend to vote this year, while only 85% of the general population intends to do so. Even though Kerry served in Vietnam and made his past military service a major feature of the Democratic National Convention, the Annenberg poll indicates he has won very little respect from active-duty military and their families. The survey interviewed 655 active-duty military (including regular forces, National Guard members and Reservists) and military family members between September 22 and October 5. The poll had a margin of error of +/-4%. Sixty-seven per cent said they approved of the way Bush was handling his job as President and 64% said they believe the country is headed in the right direction. Perhaps the most significant answer in the survey came in response to the question: "Who do you trust to handle the responsibilities of commander in chief of the military: George W. Bush or John Kerry?" Sixty-nine per cent said Bush, while only 24% said Kerry. A 1948 law prohibits directly polling members of the armed forces about whom they intend to support in elections. So, the poll only raised the logical inference that a majority of military personnel will support Bush based on answers given to other questions. The preference for Bush over Kerry, for example, was strongly displayed when military people were asked to compare various traits of the two candidates. When asked who "shares my values," 64% said Bush; 28% said Kerry. When asked who is a "strong leader," 72% said Bush; 20% said Kerry. When asked who "says one thing and does another," 22% said Bush; 65% said Kerry. The military personnel embraced realistic views about Iraq. When asked: "All in all, do you think the situation in Iraq was worth going to war over, or not?" 69% said yes, and 27% said no. Only 47% said the war in Iraq has reduced the risk of terrorism against the United States, and only 47% said they think President Bush has a "clear plan" for bringing the situation in Iraq to a successful conclusion. Nonetheless, a dismal 16% believe Kerry has a "clear plan" for bringing the situation in Iraq to a successful conclusion. When asked to list the "most important reason" for going to war in Iraq, 29% said to remove Saddam from power, 23% said because Iraq was helping terrorists, 15% said because Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, 13% said to bring stability to the Middle East, 11% said to gain control of Iraq's oil, and 6% said to bring democracy to Iraq. Military Compares Bush and Kerry Cares about people like me Bush higher: 59% Kerry higher: 30% Equal: 10% Strong leader Bush higher: 72% Kerry higher: 20% Equal: 6% Shares my values Bush higher: 64% Kerry higher: 28% Equal: 7% Says one thing, does another Bush higher: 22% Kerry higher: 65% Equal: 9% Generally speaking do you think of yourself as: Republican: 43% Democrat: 19% Independent: 28% High Marks for Commander-in-Chief Here are some of the results from the National Annenberg Election Survey of 655 active-duty military personnel and their families. Do you approve of the way George W. Bush is doing his job as President? Approve: 67% Disapprove: 29% Please tell me if your opinion of George W. Bush is favorable or unfavorable? Favorable: 69% Unfavorable: 23% Please tell me if your opinion of John Kerry is favorable or unfavorable? Favorable: 29% Unfavorable: 54% Do you feel things in this country are generally going in the right direction, or do you think things are going seriously off on the wrong track? Right direction: 64% Wrong track: 31% All in all, do you think the situation in Iraq was worth going to war over, or not? Yes, worth it: 64% No, not worth it: 32% Do you think George W. Bush has a clear plan for bringing the situation in Iraq to a successful conclusion, or don’t you think so? Has a clear plan: 47% Does not have a clear plan: 48% Do you think John Kerry has a clear plan for bringing the situation in Iraq to a successful conclusion, or don’t you think so? Has a clear plan: 18% Does not have a clear plan: 72% Who do you trust more to handle the responsibilities of commander in chief of the military: George W. Bush or John Kerry? George W. Bush: 69% John Kerry: 24% Source: National Annenberg Election Survey. The complete poll can be viewed here.

To: kikogrey who wrote (650595)	10/24/2004 4:35:34 PM
From: Hope Praytochange	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

johnflipkerry - 4:29 PM ET October 24, 2004 (#51194 of 51195) Liberal Group: Kerry Campaign Misused Church by Joseph A. D'Agostino Posted Oct 22, 2004 Americans United for Separation of Church and State has filed a complaint with the Internal Revenue Service alleging that Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry's appearance in a Baptist church in Miami on Sunday, October 10, amounted to an illegal campaign rally. Meanwhile, Rep. Walter Jones (R.-N.C.), a conservative defender of the 1st Amendment rights of churches, says the incident bolsters his argument for legalizing political speech in churches. Jones is sponsor of the Houses of Worship Free Speech Restoration Act (HR 235) that would allow clergymen and others to expressly advocate or oppose candidates and political causes in a church without surrendering the church's tax-exempt status. Congress may approve this bill during the lame-duck session that will follow the election. On October 10, Kerry, the Rev. Jesse Jackson, the Rev. Al Sharpton, and others spoke at the Friendship Missionary Baptist Church, an African-American congregation in Miami. Although Americans United does not claim explicit endorsements of Kerry were made at the Miami service and no transcript of the event could be found, news reports indicate endorsements of Kerry were made. Kerry himself said: "I'm here to tell you today if you make me President on November 2, I'm going to stand up and tell you and all the other people in this country struggling for fairness, struggling for justice, I've got your back." (The Chicago Tribune) Referring to Kerry, Sharpton said: "The future of this country and the future of this world will rest on our ability to come out in big numbers and elect this man on November 2." (The Florida Sun-Sentinel) Sharpton also said : "Get ready, Mr. Bush. Those that you felt you disenfranchised and marginalized and ignored, early this November 2, we're going to get up, and we're going to the polls for the big payback." (The Los Angeles Times) The church's pastor, the Rev. Gaston Smith, who introduced "the Massachusetts senator as the 'next President of the United States' and at one point, just 'President,' told his parishioners: 'To bring our country out of despair, despondency and disgust, God has a John Kerry.'" (The Miami Herald) "It was a virtual campaign rally," said Rob Boston, spokesman for Americans United. ". . . It was similar to another one that took place in Miami in August." (DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe headlined that event, although Kerry himself was not present.) Boston said the October 10 event was a clear violation of federal law which says that tax-exempt churches, in the IRS's words, cannot "intervene in" the outcome of an election. johnflipkerry - 4:29 PM ET October 24, 2004 (#51195 of 51195) James Bopp, an attorney associated with the James Madison Center for Free Speech, said he believes the government should get out of the business of regulating speech in churches and favors the Jones bill. "It's a step in the right direction," he said, noting that it applied only to speeches and sermons made in church and not to church bulletins and other communications, which would still be regulated by the IRS. Many pastors have suffered a "chilling effect" from "harassment" by the IRS and cannot speak freely, Bopp said. Jones's bill is supported by the House Republican leadership and by Senate Finance Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R.-Iowa). Later this year, it could be attached to legislation raising the government's debt ceiling or to the omnibus spending bill that must be passed to fund the government. Jones told HUMAN EVENTS that Americans United and others have been targeting religious leaders for speaking out on politically potent moral issues such as abortion and same-sex "marriage," not just on elections. "A bishop in Colorado Springs can't write a pastoral letter without [AU Executive Director] Barry Lynn filing a complaint," he said. "My bill would return the 1st Amendment right of spiritual leaders that they had until 1954," when then-Sen. Lyndon Johnson (D.-Tex.) slipped a provision into a bill revoking churches' tax-exempt status if they engaged in political activity. humaneventsonline.com

To: kikogrey who wrote (650595)	10/24/2004 4:42:44 PM
From: Hope Praytochange	Respond to of 769670

johnflipkerry - 4:35 PM ET October 24, 2004 (#51211 of 51213) Marriage Vote Highlights Liberal Hypocrisy by Don Feder Posted Oct 8, 2004 To no one's great surprise, the House of Representatives failed to pass the Marriage Protection Amendment (MPA),which would safeguard marriage and the family from activist judges. On September 30, the House voted 227 to 186 in favor of defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman--far short of the two-thirds vote needed for an amendment to pass Congress and go to the states for ratification. However, this was an improvement over action in the Senate in June, when a vote to end a filibuster failed--48-to-50. On no issue is there a greater divergence between public opinion and the agenda of the elite--including the people's supposed representatives on the bench and in Congress-- than on the future of matrimony. Every opinion survey shows the American people overwhelmingly support a federal marriage amendment. In the latest Wirthlin Worldwide poll, 67% favored the amendment, including 56% of Democrats. State marriage amendments continue to advance. In August, Missouri voters wrote the traditional definition of marriage into their state constitution (by a vote of 71%). Louisiana voters did the same in September (by 79%). Marriage protection has never lost a statewide vote, even in very liberal states like California and Hawaii. An additional 10 states could have marriage amendments on the November ballot. Thousands of volunteers collected millions of signatures to achieve this. In all likelihood, after this election, 42 states will have defined marriage, by amendment or statute. House liberals--if you can believe it--attacked the amendment as a violation of states' rights. The definition of marriage should be decided by the states, they solemnly declare. How nice. After decades disparaging states' rights as the last refuge of racists and reactionaries, suddenly, liberals are diligently defending the rights of the states from federal intrusion--in one instance only. It is, of course, a red --or is that lavender?--herring. When liberals cry: "Leave the definition of marriage to the states," they're really saying: "Leave it to our friends on the bench." (Defining marriage a la Genesis is the manifest will of the states, as reflected in the aforesaid referenda.) johnflipkerry - 4:35 PM ET October 24, 2004 (#51213 of 51213) Either the meaning of the word marriage will be settled by an amendment or by the judiciary. In Massachusetts, the high court of Kerry country ordered the state's legislature to provide for homosexual marriage--based, if you please, on an 18th Century constitution. If the Supreme Court overturns the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act as a violation of the Constitution's full faith and credit clause, a gay marriage entered into in Massachusetts would have to be recognized everywhere else, even in states with amendments prohibiting the same. Then, instead of Nevada divorces, we'll have Mass. marriages. Four justices in one state will have determined the nature of marriage for the entire nation. Or, given the dogmatism of the Supreme Court--as manifested in its decision in Lawrence v. Texas (2003), which created a constitutional right to homosexual sodomy --I wouldn't put it past the court to legislate gay marriage itself, as it did with abortion in Roe v. Wade. One can almost admire the candor of the hard-core homosexual rights advocates such as Rep. Barney Frank (D.-Mass.) who at least debate the issue on its merits. In answer to the argument that putting the state's imprimatur on the union of Adam and Steve will destabilize marriage, Frank (in the words of a New York Times story) "barked on the House floor … 'I'm sorry Rush Limbaugh has been divorced three times, but it isn't my fault.'" No, Barney it ain't your fault (any more than it's my fault that you once lived with a male prostitute who ran an escort service out of your apartment). But are we really expected to believe that turning marriage into an amorphous institution will strengthen it? Society's essential work of procreation and child-rearing will always be done, almost exclusively, by mom and dad, Mr. And Mrs., husband and wife. In light of that, they deserve special recognition and support unavailable to two of the Village People who met in a fern bar the evening before. Anything that detracts from the millennia-old model, by suggesting any two (or three, or more?) individuals who have a yen for each other constitute a marriage necessarily will weaken an institution already rocked by decades of liberal social experimentation.