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 : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (19815)	7/31/2001 10:54:56 AM
From: Win Smith	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 82486

White House Says the U.S. Is Not a Loner, Just Choosy nytimes.com So, I was going to suggest the discussion move on to drugs and rock'n'roll , but then this article on that other topic showed up. In his first six months in office, President Bush has abandoned a treaty on fighting global warming, rejected protocols enforcing a ban on germ warfare, demanded amendments to an accord on illegal sales of small arms, threatened to skip an international conference on racism and vowed to withdraw from a landmark pact limiting ballistic missile defenses. The reaction from Berlin to Beijing has been one of concern that an American president who walks away from so many treaties might be one who wants to walk away from the world — or, at the least, one who will demand that the world live by terms dictated by America alone. Mr. Bush's advisers deny that he is unilateralist or isolationist, or that his administration has a blanket disdain for group action as a way of conducting world affairs. They simply view treaties as a steam-engine-age tool whose usefulness this deep into the nuclear era will be judged one issue at a time, one negotiation at a time, one summit meeting at a time. And one at a time, W will say "My way or the highway". Or perhaps more accurately, Karl Rove's way.

To: Lane3 who wrote (19815)	7/31/2001 11:10:22 AM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Karen I didn't think that you were thinking of me when you made the comment, so I was fairly sure it was in no way intended as an insult to me, but I feat that I might fall under the category of Kyoto busters. It is hard to be certain though as I am not sure exactly what qualifies one as "Kyoto buster". It could be specifically refering to GW and his administration who busted up US participation in the Kyoto treaty in which case I technically would not be part of that group, but I might have been if I was president of the US or a senior cabinet member. As for what Steven said I can agree with it in part but it would be easier to be concerned and respectful about what the rest of the world thinks and feels if they would be concerned and respectful about what we think and feel. I also agree with your earlier point about being diplomatic but I still think that plans to impliment bad ideas as laws or treaties should be opposed whether or not it hurts some one elses feelings. Tim