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.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Grainne who wrote (93642)	1/14/2005 10:16:25 AM
From: epicure	Respond to of 108807

'Bring'em on' now gives Bush pause Friday, January 14, 2005 Associated Press WASHINGTON -- President Bush expressed misgivings yesterday over two of his most famous expressions: "Bring'em on," in reference to Iraqis attacking U.S. troops, and his vow to get Osama bin Laden "dead or alive." During a round-table interview with reporters from 14 newspapers, Bush acknowledged that his tough language "had an unintended consequence." On July 2, 2003, two months after he had declared an end to major combat in Iraq, Bush promised U.S. forces would stay until the creation of a free government there. To those who would attack U.S. forces in an attempt to deter that mission, Bush said: "My answer is, Bring'em on." "Sometimes, words have consequences you don't intend them to mean," Bush said yesterday. "'Bring'em on' is the classic example, when I was really trying to rally the troops and make it clear to them that I fully understood, you know, what a great job they were doing. And those words had an unintended consequence. It kind of, some interpreted it to be defiance in the face of danger. That certainly wasn't the case." In the week after the Sept. 11 attacks, Bush was asked if he wanted bin Laden, the terrorist leader blamed for the attacks, dead. "I want justice," Bush said. "And there's an old poster out West, that I recall, that said, 'Wanted, Dead or Alive.'" Recalling that remark, Bush said yesterday: "I can remember getting back to the White House, and Laura said, 'Why did you do that for?' I said, 'Well, it was just an expression that came out. I didn't rehearse it.' "I don't know if you'd call it a regret, but it certainly is a lesson that a president must be mindful of, that the words that you sometimes say ... I speak plainly sometimes, but you've got to be mindful of the consequences of the words. So put that down. I don't know if you'd call that a confession, a regret, something." In his second debate last year with presidential challenger Sen. John Kerry, Bush was asked to name three instances in which he had made a wrong decision. At the time he declined to identify any specific mistakes.

To: Grainne who wrote (93642)	1/14/2005 10:23:07 AM
From: Oeconomicus	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Re "the issue of the Muslims in Europe. Their society is extremely conservative, and women remain mostly covered up and in the home, for example." They can remain "conservative" and covered up if they want to. If the wife doesn't want to live that way and wants to leave her husband, the law should protect her, but if she believes that's the way she should live, whose right is it to say otherwise? As for daughters, like their male siblings, their mode of dress is governed by the parents. Would you let your child leave the house dressed in a way you considered inappropriate? Many other manifestations of "conservatism", though clearly not all (see below), should likewise offend no one and be of no one else's business. For example, the state has no business interfering with a parent's ability to govern or restrict a child's music listening, television, movie or reading choices. "Does the larger society need to protect Muslim girls and women from beatings from their husbands in the same way that they would if the women belonged to the dominant culture?" Of course. "Should the state insist that Muslim girls go to school as long as other girls are required to?" Yes, but like anyone else, they can choose whether to attend public, private secular or private religious schools. Or, perhaps, home school, but with some kind of supervision (I'm not sure how that works here and can't really relate to those who want to do that to their child, but who am I to judge?). "What should the state do about the problem of clitordectomies in the Muslim community?" The state has a justifiable interest in protecting the physical and mental health of residents of all ages, regardless of who is inflicting the injury. The point is, the state's role and responsibilities are no different regarding Muslim immigrants than regarding native residents - that is to protect individual rights. If they are prohibiting head scarves, they have gone way beyond the proper role of government. I don't understand why this is so confusing to you. PS: Yes, Atlanta is very international. Large communities of east Asian, south Asian, middle eastern, various Hispanic, Brasilian, east African, west African, Caribbean, etc. What? You thought it was all white Southern Baptist Republicans and black Methodist-Episcopal Democrats? You need to get out more. ;-)