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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: michael97123 who wrote (390118)	6/10/2008 11:57:02 AM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576330

>> All swiftboaters on both right and left are scumbags. Do you agree? "Swiftboating" is kind of an ill-defined term. I find it difficult to criticize anyone for a factual presentation of facts in a campaign. However, as I've said, I believe Coulter's remarks against Cleland, for example, were factual, yet not respectful of Cleland's military service. As applied to Kerry, I find the following ads totally acceptable: youtube.com youtube.com They are absolutely factual, make no claims that are misrepresentations in any way, and frankly, were pertinent to the process. They do not disparage Kerry for his service, but point out his OWN remarks made after he returned. For many people (including me), Kerry's behavior was repugnant -- not because he opposed the war, but because he disrespected other soldiers in the process. There may have been other swiftboat ads that were over the top, but I find no fault with the two above. My recollection is that there were some swiftboat ads where Kerry's claims as to what he was actually doing in the service were called into question, and I remember somewhere along the line his claims concerning Purple Hearts were questioned. These might have been over the top (but I don't remember the specifics and don't see them on youtube). The long and short of it is I don't believe a man who serves in the military ought to be later criticized for that service unless he somehow betrays the honor. Cleland certainly did not. Kerry, some would argue, did -- after he returned. It is important to distinguish between the Cleland situation and Kerry's; I am not aware of Cleland ever disparaging soldiers. Kerry, OTOH, did -- and it was totally appropriate to use that against him in the campaign, IMO. And as can be seen above, Kerry clearly renounced his military service, which is highly relevant to the process when we are selecting a Commander-in-Chief. I would never disparage Kerry for his military service, but his criticism of other soldiers was totally out of line and was certainly fair game for the election.