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: Steve Lokness who wrote (213919)	7/31/2007 2:26:50 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793903

Thats not true - why do you say that when you know it is not true?.......I most definitely supported our efforts in Afghanistan - Come off it, Steve. Not one word in your last posts is about Afganistan. And Afganistan is always the fall-back position of the Bush-haters. We have been discussing the ME. And every comment from you about the ME and what we are doing or can do is negative.

To: Steve Lokness who wrote (213919)	7/31/2007 2:57:31 PM
From: mph	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793903

The entire Roosevelt quote, in context, is interesting: The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly as necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else." - -- Theodore Roosevelt

To: Steve Lokness who wrote (213919)	8/1/2007 1:38:00 PM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793903

Steve, re. Ron Paul I just found out the details of how Ron Paul would handle terrorism. He wants to bring back "letters of marque" that the European kings used to issue to privateers authorizing them to practice piracy againt the ships of foreign nations - see Francis Drake, William Kidd, etc. I guess he figures this is consistent with the idea of non-intervention. I doubt anyone else would consider the US authorizing mercenaries to wage war on our enemies for us as non-intervention though. On October 10, 2001, Congressman Ron Paul led the effort in Congress to give President Bush the tools he needed to capture, dead or alive, Osama bin Laden and the other terrorists responsible for September 11th. Dr. Paul introduced on that day H.R. 3076 - The September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001. If passed, that legislation would have given President Bush an additional weapon against bin Laden. If Dr. Paul's legislation had passed in 2001, it is likely bin Laden would not still be at large six years later. .............. Letters of marque and reprisal would: Improve chances to capture Osama bin Laden and others more quickly. Decrease the risk of American military being wounded or killed. Decrease the risk of a larger war developing. Decrease the number of innocent civilians killed. Reduce the cost of U.S. military operations. Article I, Section 8, Clauses 10 and 11 of the U.S. Constitution grant Congress the power to offer a bounty and appoint stealth warriors, private companies and individuals, to capture or kill an enemy such as Osama bin Laden and his fellow terrorists, as well as seize their property. ............. Message 23750888