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 : Amazon.com, Inc. (AMZN) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Skeeter Bug who wrote (132574)	10/4/2001 7:45:45 PM
From: schrodingers_cat	Respond to of 164684

Reported anthrax case in Florida. Unsettling, if the diagnosis is correct. nytimes.com

To: Skeeter Bug who wrote (132574)	10/5/2001 5:07:05 PM
From: craig crawford	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164684

>> your logical end scenario isn't necessarily logical. it could happen, but so could many other things that don't include the US grabbing its collective ankles. << i think that is the most meaningless statement i have ever seen from you here on si. because the future is uncertain and can't be proven ahead of time, we shouldn't even bother to take preventive measures to protect our liberty? that is the same kind of piss poor logic that allowed the attacks of 9/11 to occur. an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. by the time the proof that you require arrives it's already too late. >> they don't tell. they ask. the un is a weak institution << another ridiculous statement. i'm not going to waste my time posting example after example of the UN encroaching on our sovereignty. i cite you several specific examples, and instead of addressing those you cite some conference on racism. just like buschman, instead of countering the examples i cited where we surrender sovereignty, you cite one example where we don't and use that as evidence to support your argument. finding one instance where we aren't imperialist or hegemonic, or one instance where we didn't cede sovereignty doesn't negate all the examples i have cited where we do surrender sovereignty. >> i agree that giving up sovereignty is foolish. so would 99.9% of americans << you wanna bet? many americans believe we should cede sovereignty to global authorities in the name of peace, unity, & freedom for all of humanity. that is the sole goal of the new world order dreamers. >> working within un constructs, if the un is being reasonable, << like i said before, you fail to even acknowledge the examples i have cited. >> ...is not that big a deal. when they are being unreasonable, the biggest kid in the sandbox will do what he is going to do. when i see REAL dangers then i will worry. << ho hum. no big deal. i'm sure everything will work out ok. no worries. this is the same pathetic & complacent attitude that led to the deaths of six or seven thousand people. only NOW after 6,000+ people were slaughtered are people "worrying". have you ever heard of the analogy where you can try to boil a frog by dropping him in hot water where he will hop out or you can put him in some cold water and then gradually heat it up? the frog isn't cognizant enough to realize that he is gradually being boiled alive. well that analogy applies here. the best way to erode your freedoms and liberties are gradually. it's a shame that people like you are waiting for "REAL dangers" before you worry. by then it just might be too late. >> extremists love ad hominem, too. gets people riled up and emotional. leaves them less rational << ahh yes. i'm sure you would have said the exact same thing when we were deciding whether or not we should fight for our independence from britain. you don't think the people that laid down their life to gain independence were "riled up and emotional"? in order to be rational and not extremist we need to waver and vacillate like you do? we need to stay calm and rational while we wait for the "REAL dangers" to surface? >> actually, i thought i read where you supported letting other folks fall victim to genocide and starve to death w/o US any US intervention << that's an awfully broad characterization. i believe there needs to be a vital US interest. >> my assumption was that those folks might interpret that as the middle finger << hmm, we send tens of millions of dollars of food aid to starving people in afghanistan. go ask the average afghani on the street what he thinks of america. >> you have the generalities down, however, they don't mean jack squash. << i have yet to see any solutions put forth by you. all i see is indecision. we should wait for "REAL dangers" to emerge before taking steps to protect our liberty and freedom. >> please list the rights the US has been FORCED to give up AGAINST ITS WILL? please be specific << you continue to miss the point. i never said our sovereignty was forcibly taken from us, i said we were foolish for giving it away. it doesn't matter whether we gave it away or it was taken from us, it's gone nevertheless. >> then a real discussion might ensue instead of nonsense rhetoric designed to limit the impact of the intellect << i am the one who has provided specific examples. you have provided no effective counter to those. it's time for you to put up or shut up, not i.