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.

Technology Stocks : Qualcomm Incorporated (QCOM) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Carolyn who wrote (91848)	1/14/2001 1:02:10 PM
From: Pierre	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 152472

Carolyn, on a more serious note - there is IMHO a serious problem with Ashcroft as AG. When in the Senate, he voted against almost every Clinton nominee for the Federal Bench. He was often inflammatory in his criticism - calling Justice White a "supporter of murder" because he overturned a death penalty conviction and ordered a new trial. Justice White had, however, voted to let stand the death penalty in 7 of 10 cases before him. And Ashcroft didn't limit his opposition to Justice White - it was accross the board regarding Clinton nominees to the bench. He angered many on both sides of the political aisle. The point is, can a man who apparently could not put personal ideology and politics aside when he was on the Senate Judiciary Committee be put in a position where he must enforce laws that by his own definition run directly contrary to his moral beliefs. That has little to do with whether he's liberal or conservative - that's just the circumstance that creates the conundrum. The real issue is his apparent inability to put his ideology aside when duty requires it. I expect the confirmation hearing will focus on that issue, and am anxious to get an answer that reassures. If no such answer is forthcoming, then IMHO he shouldn't hold the office. Pierre

To: Carolyn who wrote (91848)	1/14/2001 1:38:21 PM
From: timblair1	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Ibex got it right. I'm a Missourian (originally from Southwest Missouri, where Ashcroft calls home), and I can say that the reason Missourians dumped Ashcroft is because his views are out of step with most of the state. Last time I checked Missouri was known as the Gateway to the West, not the Gateway to the South. St. Louis' Arch faces west, not South. We fought that battle already (sometime in the 1860s, when the Southern patriots were driven to establish a capital in exile somewhere in Texas). Ashcroft's defense of Confederate "patriots" shows he's terribly naive at best; forgotten his history and why the Civil War was fought, at worst. You speak of his integrity, but to many his treatment of Judge White smacks of demagoguery. He seems to have played the race card when he opposed White's appointment. That said, I must admit I'm uncomfortable with how some have cited his religious beliefs as proof of his intolerance. If Leiberman's Jewish orthodoxy had been held to the same scrutiny, I wonder how he would have fared. But Leiberman headed the debate off at the pass by demonstrating pragmatism, something I'm not sure Ashcroft's fundamentalism will allow. Finally, I'm always amused when someone from Missouri claims he/she has a corner on "living by his word." There's a reason why the mule plays such a big role as the state's icon. Some say it's because they are so stubborn and boneheaded. Others might remind that mule traders weren't exactly known as for their honesty. Regardless, your sanctimonious attitude does little to buttress your argument.

To: Carolyn who wrote (91848)	1/14/2001 3:07:39 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Respond to of 152472

<The man lives by his word, which means something here in Missouri> While it's true that living by one's word is good, it depends somewhat on what the word is. Hitler lived by his, but it didn't make the word good. Do you have a link to The Word somewhere please? I'm interested in John Ashcroft's free trade credentials when it comes to Missouri producers having to compete with overseas producers. QUALCOMM is going to be dependent on a freely-trading world. A retreat into protectionism and 'self-sufficiency' is not in QUALCOMM's interests. Bill Clinton signed up [illegally it seems] for New Zealand sheep-meat import restrictions to reduce competition faced by USA producers. The WTO was investigating. I don't know the outcome. Interesting when you think that the interests of consumers is supposed to be paramount in antitrust laws. Bill prosecuted $ill while doing worse himself, using state monopoly power. Also, I disagree with the idea that people have to be something or be somewhere to know something. It's possible to know something about the Moon without ever having been there. It's possible to know a lot about Bill Clinton and John Ashcroft and Missouri whether one lives in the same house, a kilometre away, 1000km away or 10000km away. Often, distance lends perspective. Even the person themselves knows less about themselves in some respects than others can see about them. It's possible to know a lot about sheep, ants, Missourians, men or women without being one. Mqurice PS: This distant emotion-counter says yours are more florid than Ibexx's. Anyway, why shouldn't people express emotions? It's like the old adage about keeping emotions out of investing. Anyone who thinks they do that is fooling themselves and that's the worst thing to do in investing. Emotions are intrinsic to humans and are something to be harnessed in service of the mind [or drive the mind, whichever way you look at it - it's a bit of a glass half full argument; either way, there is a whole glass. <Anyway, why shouldn't people express emotions?> The danger of expressing emotions is that the mind takes a back seat and the dinosaur takes over. Bill Clinton's strength was that he could feel and express emotions, while having his rat-cunning mind staying right there in charge of proceedings. Al Gore is all repression and stolid; his flights of passion a minimalist glimpse into a few staged 'emotions'. The 'passionate' kiss was an embarrassment and didn't look too genuine to me and certainly wasn't respectful or concerned for the recipient's attitude at the time. BWDIK. That's my Sunday Sermon!