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: Tenchusatsu who wrote (396750)	7/7/2008 8:40:25 PM
From: bentway	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1575399

You seem somewhat disturbed by the "McSame" and "McBush" labels, which are MUCH more accurate than calling Obama another Carter. Bush has elevated Carter to new heights! As the new "worst", he's elevated ALL previous Presidents.

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (396750)	7/7/2008 9:45:01 PM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1575399

"Not as proud as you -+are of Carter's "accomplishments."" Unlike you and harris, I am not attempting to rewrite history. Carter was a terrible president in many ways. But, not everything he did was bad. His push on intelligent weapons, for example. And his energy programs. But, your team is so busy making shit up that you have lost sight of reality. Those programs existed. If we had kept them up, we would be in much better shape now. But, your team has been so busy running up the credit card and passing up opportunities to behave prudently, that we are having to rely on winning the lottery to get out of this hole. You must be proud. "Kind of says a lot when your side is too embarrassed to call Obama "Carter II."" He isn't Carter II. Yet. Although he could be. He certainly has been dealt a lousy hand. Which, brings up an issue, since Carter is on the table. Your team is big on the argument "yeah, Bush is bad, but the other guys would have been worse". Y'all are always predicting that if Gore had been president, we would be bowing to Mecca now and similar such nonsense. Of all the recent presidents, Carter is the one that is the supposed model for these projections. So, what did he do when the ME decided to force a change in the way we treat Israel and the ME in general? Did he throw Israel under the bus and lead national prayers to Meccas? No. He pushed even harder to get the ME to accept Israel that culminated in the Camp David Accords. He pushed, hard, to wean the US off of foreign oil. He, in fact, did not cave in on their demands, although it would have been easier. Which sort of exposes the myths y'all have been spinning.

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (396750)	7/8/2008 1:55:29 AM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575399

I found it laughable when you were crusading earlier today, suggesting that liberals impose their lifestyles on the others. The reality, of course, is that its the right that imposes its values and lifestyle on the rest of us. Not only does the concept of separation of church and state seem to confuse you all but you all are prepared to intimidate those who don't think like you. July 7, 2008 The U.S. Christian military? Posted: 03:17 PM ET Randi Kaye AC360° Correspondent Is the United States Military becoming a Christian organization? That’s what one U.S. soldier tells us. I met Army Specialist Jeremy Hall in Kansas City a few weeks ago. He’s based at Fort Riley, in Junction City, Kansas about an hour away. At 24, he’s a remarkable young man determined to complete one final mission. That is to win a lawsuit against the federal government. Specialist Hall is suing the Department of Defense and former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld for failing to protect his religious freedom. He says the military discriminates against non-Christians and his rights under the First Amendment were denied. Hall has served two tours in Iraq as a gunner. He’s back at Fort Riley now only because he says his life was threatened after it became public he is an atheist. “I don’t believe in God, luck, fate, or anything supernatural,” Hall told me. It wasn’t always that way. Hall grew up reading the Bible every night and saying grace at dinner. Then, after his first tour of duty, he met some friends who were atheist and decided to read the Bible again. He read the whole Bible, and had so many unanswered questions, he says, he decided to embrace atheism. In the army, he says, that cost him dearly. Hall says he was denied a promotion because of his beliefs, and felt his life was in jeopardy. He says the army assigned him a full-time bodyguard because of threats. At Thanksgiving, Hall refused to pray with his table and says an officer told him to go sit somewhere else. Also, after he was nearly killed when his humvee was attacked, he says a fellow soldier asked him, “do you believe in Jesus now?” Hall says he was ostracized because he didn’t embrace fundamentalist Christianity. We checked and religious discrimination is against military policy. Bill Carr, the man in charge of military personnel policy at the Pentagon, told me, “if an atheist chose to follow their convictions, absolutely, that’s acceptable. And that’s a point of religious accommodation in department policy, one may hold whatever faith, or may hold no faith.” Hall doesn’t want money from the military. He just wants soldiers to be guaranteed religious freedom. He plans to leave the army next year, as soon as he can, and wants to leave it a better place than when he first joined it, he says. What do you think? Should military members be allowed to proselytize? Do you believe the Pentagon when it says this isn’t happening? ac360.blogs.cnn.com