SI
SI
discoversearch

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.
Technology Stocks : LORAL -- Political Discussion
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: jlallen who wrote (635)6/30/1998 10:07:00 AM
From: brian h  Read Replies (1) of 880
 
JLA,

I was busy yesterday. No time to respond. Here I come.

We live in a free society. The product (tobacco) is legal. Either outlaw the stuff or accept the reality that as long as its legal it will be marketed and sold.

Good point. Although I totally disagree with your grandfather smoking analogy. You grandfather death without lung cancer, did not change the facts that "tobacco for sure will kill". You grandfather may live even longer if he did not smoke or he did not live long enough to get the cancer. Therefore I think "may" is not a good enough term. Plus why a small print of warning on the tobacco pack only? Are they afraid of something? Of course not. That is the highest moral and ethical standard they can afford in US. Without government regulations (qualified here, I am a Republican), are these companies going to print those small prints on the pack. Heck No!

Alright! Let us forget about ethical and moral standards we, US, set up so high to preach other countries. Let talk about LORAL.

<1> Mr. Schwartz's "soft money" is also legal and voluntary in US. Anyone (with exception) can do it. There were 4 elements for so called "LORAL scandal". (Mr. Schwartz donation + Clinton's waiver + Chinese donation + LOR's engineer's report may have jeopardized US national security). Using your analogy of tobacco products buying and selling being legal, I will say the first "Loral scandal"' chip is falling hard and solid. Whether Mr. Schwartz's soft money influenced Mr. Clinton's waiver decision is irrelevent. It is legal to give soft money. So US national security is no issue here.

<2> Mr. Clinton's waiver decision is irrelevant here also. Because under the law he has the executive previlage to make any decision he want under various agencies recommendations. The second chip also falls now. US national security is no issue here.

<3> The Chinese donation chip - You have to remember there are 1.2 billion Chinese out there. One Chinese's $100,000 donation even with its government connection does not represent the Chinese government. I am sure a US businessman gave a bribery in other countries does not represent US government's involvement. I thought our CIA people do that all the time in other countries.

<4> Engineering report is still vague. And no connection whatsoever with Mr. Schwartz.

The most important point of all - national security. If US does not target China first. Why the hell China want to target us back? I am sure US have more nuclear missile warheads against any country US wants to target.

Brian H.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2026 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News