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: Scumbria who wrote (120563)	7/19/2000 1:55:23 PM
From: Jim McMannis	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1579701

RE:"The tobacco industry has been using the science argument to back up their viewpoint for most of my lifetime, and I got a senior citizen discount yesterday" So, you're a geezer now? <G> As far as science is concerned, well you can get an expert witness for just about any view these days. No doubt that tobacco is a carcinogen, my uncle (one of the first studies) and some others proved that 35 years ago. On the other hand, tobacco isn't that bad of a carcinogen. So they find worse carcinogens and compare. As for Gore, rather interesting that his family is/was in the tobacco business and his sister died from lung cancer... I thought you were coming around to a more libertarian, anarchist point of view but I guess party lines die hard... Jim

To: Scumbria who wrote (120563)	7/19/2000 2:22:36 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1579701

OT Junior George is using the "best science" argument as a way to protect his corporate campaign donors from having to take any actions which might cost them or him any money. And his corporate donors shouldn't be forced to take expensive actions that are sufficently justified. That's where the "best science" (not a really well defined term I admit) comes in to it. If you are going to control people through regulation or fine them or tax them because you believe that there actions are demonstratively harmful, then the science supporting your claim should be very solid and the harm caused by the taxes, fines and regulations had better be less then the harm that would come about in their absence. Did you know that no scientific study has ever proven that violence on television impacts children's behavior? I don't think it is likely that one will any time soon. I would not argue "we need more violence on TV", but I would argue against any increase in government regulation of TV. The Republican Party has their campaign finance abuse institutionalized into the system, and don't have to resort to the more creative measures that Democrats require to run a competitive campaign. The Democrats have their own institutionalized support, specifically from the unions and the trial lawyers. A lot of corporate support goes to both parties. Personally I don't want to limit campaign contributions or spending, I would however like to make it more open. Tim PS AMD seems to be recovering a bit RTQ 89 3/4 up off a 86 5/16 low.