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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: rich4eagle who wrote (7085)	10/5/1999 11:47:00 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

I apologize, I have been preoccupied, and did not fasten on the sudden rush to get the test ban treaty ratified. I agree with the Republican leadership, that is pretty worthless, and at least should not be rushed through.... NAFTA was never abandoned. There were arguments in both parties about extending new cash to the Mexicans.... I am not going to attempt to settle military needs in this forum. Suffice it to say that it is generally acknowledged, by persons more knowledgeable than either of us, that we have let our forces decline, and I believe it to be so.... Overall, I agreed with some points, but either amended them, or pointed out that you had mistaken the credit. If one takes welfare reform and deficit reduction, which were on your list, and at least acknowledges that the Republicans in Congress played a role, it makes you statement that the leadership has been against all of the progressive issues, well, wrong..... I did not say that China was our enemy, even for stealing our secrets. I said that we, of necessity, have a rivalry in the Pacific, and that they are our chief potential adversary in that region, and that it is bad, in such a circumstance, that they stole our secrets. They may be "doing their job", but it is not our job to sit around and applaud... The First Amendment was also written in the eighteenth century, does that mean it is outmoded? Anyway, I did not primarily refer to the constitutional provision, but to what I construe as a deeper right, which is the right of self- defense, and suggested that that ought not lightly to be tampered with....