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 : John Kerrys Crimes & Lies -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Gary Walker who wrote (1128)	11/1/2004 7:16:01 PM
From: Captain Jack	Respond to of 1905

XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX MON NOV 01, 2004 17:16:01 ET XXXXX Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf Calls On DNC To Stop Fraudulent Phone Calls Claiming He Has Endorsed Senator Kerry TAMPA, FL – Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf today issued the following statement: "The Democratic National Committee is making fraudulent phone calls claiming that I have endorsed Senator Kerry. Nothing could be further from the truth, and I demand that they stop immediately. "Senator Kerry opposed the Reagan defense build-up that won the Cold War. Senator Kerry opposed the removal of Saddam Hussein from Kuwait. Senator Kerry proposed billions in intelligence cuts after the first attack on the World Trade Center. Senator Kerry voted against funds to equip our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan with supplies like body armor and ammunition. "I am supporting President Bush for reelection, because he is the candidate who has demonstrated the conviction needed to defeat terrorism. In contrast to the President's steadfast determination to defeat our enemies, Senator Kerry has a record of weakness that gives me no confidence in his ability to fight and win the War on Terror. His attempt to make up for these deficiencies by falsifying my endorsement only confirms my impression that he is not the man we need to lead our nation."

To: Gary Walker who wrote (1128)	11/1/2004 7:17:51 PM
From: Captain Jack	Respond to of 1905

By Art Moore © 2004 WorldNetDaily.com A former secretary of the Navy is urging Sen. John Kerry to open up his personnel files to resolve the question of whether the Democratic presidential nominee received a less-than-honorable discharge from the Navy. William Middendorf, the Navy chief from 1974 to 1977, told WorldNetDaily that Kerry, who began inactive reserve status in 1972, would have been issued a document three years later either for a reserve reaffiliation or a separation discharge. An "honorable discharge" from 1978 appears on the Kerry campaign's website, but a Navy lawyer who served under Middendorf believes that document is a substitute for one that would have been issued in 1975. However, no such document can be found among the records Kerry has made available. "I should think it would be in his interest to open up the files, to clear up any misunderstanding," said Middendorf, who later served as ambassador to the Netherlands, Europeon Union and Organization of American States. Middendorf said he cannot comment specifically on any action taken on Kerry, because he is barred, under the 1974 privacy act, from discussing personnel matters. However, he enthusiastically vouches for the character of Sullivan, who formed the basis for a story today in the New York Sun by Thomas Lipscomb, the first to report discrepancies in Kerry's discharge record. Mark Sullivan, who served in the secretary of the Navy's office in the Judge Advocate General Corps Reserve between 1975 and 1977, says the "honorable discharge" on the Kerry website appears to be a Carter administration substitute for an original action expunged from Kerry's record, Lipscomb reported. Asked by WorldNetDaily to address Sullivan's findings, Middendorf cited the privacy act. "I shouldn't comment other than to say I respect Mark Sullivan as one of the finest Navy officers we had." If Kerry received something other than an honorable discharge, it likely was related to his anti-war activities while a member of the Navy reserve, says Jerome Corsi, a specialist on the anti-war movement and co-author of best-seller "Unfit for Command." "We've been arguing that Kerry's cooperation with the enemy throughout the Vietnam War was widely known by the intelligence community," Corsi told WND. Corsi believes this is the reason the discharge is not on the campaign website. "If he didn't have reason to hide anything, he would have released it," Corsi said.

To: Gary Walker who wrote (1128)	11/1/2004 7:25:32 PM
From: Captain Jack	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1905

Gary Let your conscious be your guide. Remember the 58,000 names on the wall and think of how many fewer would be there if his kind did not sell them away. Wonder if any of the POWs or MIAs were alive when he sold them down the river for his cousins contracts. Ask yourself if you would want him to be the CiC if any of your relatives were military. As you said, his life is based on lies- do you think leaders of other countrys do not know this? Will they trust him?

To: Gary Walker who wrote (1128)	11/1/2004 7:47:46 PM
From: Area51	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1905

I agree Iraq is a problem. Kissinger has a good article about the problems in Iraq and it seems clear that Wolfowitz and Rumsfield underestimated how difficult it would be to bring that country to democracy. I do think that thousands of more military deaths is overly pessimistic (I would hope and pray that 50\month times 18 months is pessimistic). At least Bush has the resolve to deal with the situation. They need to involve Kissinger and Powell type thinkers into the Iraq solution. If the democrats had nominated a moderate democrat with integrity (is there still such a thing?) I would consider voting democratic. At least Bush will look at how to solve the social security problem rather than starting new government programs (the Blue Cross health insurance for everyone for example) to excacerbate the funding problem we have with existing government programs.

To: Gary Walker who wrote (1128)	11/1/2004 8:51:26 PM
From: Peter Dierks	Respond to of 1905

The forum for addressing you issues is in the nominating process. If President Bush goes another 4 years without a veto we may in deep doodo. Can you even imagine the traitor in the Whitehouse? And if you could choose a first lady, wouldn't you choose Laura Bush over Teresa? Wouldn't you choose Laura Bush over Hillary too? The fuel standards you desire are within reach. The market can drive fuel economy anywhere you want it to be. If you refuse to buy any vehicle with lower standards, your choice will cause another car with high standards to be built. If you are a hypocrite like Kerry, more SUVs will be built. We can use more renewable fuels like Soy Diesel, and corn ethanol to lower dependance on foreign sources. These can be done either by increased demand, or by reduced choices. Bush wants to give the youth of this great country a chance of receiving something in government retirement funds. Kerry just wants to bankrupt Social Security faster. We are supposed to be a market driven economy. The free hand works. Companies produce what is desired. Big government types like Kerry want to reduce your choices. Bush wants a bigger government that gives you more choices. I want a smaller government. Neither candidate is addressing my desire in this area.

To: Gary Walker who wrote (1128)	11/2/2004 12:00:12 AM
From: Gary Walker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1905

Thanks for the replies, It sounds like many of you feel the same way. There is no clear choice this election. I hate the way Kerry deceived and lied during Viet Nam. He did so to further HIS cause at the expense of the soldiers. Perhaps that's a sacrifice we all have to make from time to time to win, but it's not one I respect. Kerry's tactics are just like Michael Moore, another noted deceiver. Bush on the other hand is so unpolished. It's no wonder the world leaders have so little regard for him. Worse yet can he accept that he made a poor choice? Here's a man that can't admit mistakes. I've seen too many CEO's that can't accept that they made a bad decision and so they continue the course leading to disaster. I just feel that we have one in Washington that will do the same. The sad thing is I've given money to Bush's campaign and yet I'm having doubts about voting for the man. They've asked me to work for him, but I won't.....no enthusiasm (no surprise, huh?). In the end it's a choice among "evils." Bush has not won my vote, but Kerry has lost it with his demonizing of the rich and by his liberal record in the senate. He can never bring people together by running down any group. Good luck to all tomorrow and let's hope and pray the best man wins.

To: Gary Walker who wrote (1128)	11/2/2004 2:05:36 PM
From: Cage Rattler	Respond to of 1905

Help is on the way... I must say your question sums a lot of things up. If you re-read your last paragraph perhaps you have answered your own question when you say, “a brilliant choice, a liar or someone with poor judgment.” In defense of W’s judgment: Ask yourself a serious question concerning Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, and so forth. But first define your enemy – is it OBL or terrorism and militant Islam. If you limit your definition to OBL, what proof do you have that he was in Afghanistan rather than Pakistan or Iran? Fact of the matter is there was only suspicion that placed him in Tora Bora and I sight General Franks as a reference. Do you recall rumors that he had escaped to Iran? Let’s suppose he did – then what the Hell would you have done, invaded Iran without logistic support? If you define terrorism in a more generic sense as militant Islamists, and their ilk, then invading Iraq made good sense. First, in terms of world opinion it seemed to rational man that Iraq was a legitimate target -- even before 9/11 -- because of flagrant UN resolution violations and the world consensus that Iraq possessed WMD’s and had used them.. Secondly, in a military sense, Iraq is strategically positioned in the center of the oil reserves and adjacent to Israel, Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the Emirates, Turkey, etc. For these and numerous other reasons, Iraq has a distinct advantage as a staging area to answer subsequent and probable conflict/confrontations in that region and to protect our regional allies. Our borders and illegal immigration are a problem and Bush has not risen to the occasion; BUT do you remember the influx of voters during the Clinton years? SUV’s are indeed gas guzzlers – how many did they say Kerry owned? Kerry is the issue here not world opinion. – which is Kerry’s opinion, right? Let’s ask France, Germany, and the UN about that one. Now back to your theme of a liar vis a’ vis poor judgment – A liar’s judgment is based upon a willingness to deceive and intentionally misrepresent facts to another’s disadvantage. Poor judgment, on the other hand, is a trait common to all thinking life form. In this case error is a consequence of an individual’s perception of “fact”, and as with all perception subject to reassessment and negative feedback. Kind of like that stock you didn’t buy or failed to sell. Now your liar tells you that every decision Bush made has been wrong. OK. On the other hand Bush tells you to look at Kerry’s record. Doesn’t that tell it all? Your choice I guess, a known liar who is a Realist, or a principled Idealist? The choice should be clear and simply a reflection of individual values.