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: Ilaine who wrote (80311)	10/24/2004 10:17:34 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793957

So vote for Kerry? Moronic. His point is not that Kerry would be a better choice on that issue, only that Bush isn't moving the ball forward so the difference between the two isn't critical. After all, how much incremental damage can Kerry do to that cause? There's not much more for pro-lifers to lose. If Bush doesn't promise them a gain, does it really matter all that much if Kerry is elected? This is rather like the argument I use re Kerry and his nanny-statism. He can't implement any of that with a Republican congress so voting him doesn't really do any harm in that regard. I think both arguments make sense if one is being realistic.

To: Ilaine who wrote (80311)	10/24/2004 11:45:29 AM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793957

My analogy is a strongly pro-Union voter in 1864 voting for McClellan to punish Lincoln for his mistakes in running the Civil War (and there were some doozies). Chuck out the guy who wants to win the war in favor of the guy who is ready to lose it. Anybody who thinks that Kerry wouldn't bail out of Iraq as soon as he can doesn't know the man. He sees everything through the lens of Vietnam, and the lesson of Vietnam, is don't hang around, bail fast.