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 (390138)	6/10/2008 12:16:33 PM
From: i-node	Respond to of 1576179

When kerry came back he was entitled to do what he did. Absolutely. I would never say otherwise. But campaigns (until this one) are about the candidates' history. Although i think he made some errors in judgement and did some bushie exaggerations, it should not have opened him up to a complete attack on his actual record. So, a candidate should not be attacked on his actual record? This would leave us with the "Obama" problem for every candidate -- that is, not knowing anything about the candidates. It is highly relevant to those of us who believe military service is among the highest of callings -- if Kerry came back and disparaged other soldiers, I want to know that. Same with mccain. Hey he came home and dumped his crippled wife for the coors broad. When teddy dumped joan, you probably dumped on him. In '92, I felt the Flowers relationship was irrelevant. Of course, living in Arkansas, you were already aware Clinton was a scoundrel. But after the Lewinsky thing, I wouldn't rule out relationships as fair game. If someone thinks McCain should be called to account for his past relationships, they ought to go for it -- as long as the claims are factual. I didn't care about Teddy and Joan, but when he ran out on a drowning woman, I think that should (and did) disqualify for the presidency.