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 (43843)	2/7/2002 1:34:15 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Thanks for the clarification on your use of "Statesman". As for the mildness, if I misinterpreted, I am sorry. It sounded to me like a mounting indictment put in a sardonic form. It sounds like you are sure they are indifferent to the interests of the country at large, and shameless in their conflict of interest (which is the only context in which bribery came up). In this quoted section, it sounds as if you are ignoring the fact that they do have to answer to Congress and the public in explaining themselves, they are not off the hook. But again, it is certainly possible that I misinterpreted the tone, and, in doing so, the substance. If so, I am sorry.......

To: Lane3 who wrote (43843)	2/7/2002 1:48:46 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

In the wholesome spirit of Fun, I should tell you that I derive my definition of "mild" from cheese designations, which contrast Mild with Sharp. Thus, I consider Mild to be bland and pretty straightforward, not alive with ironic zippiness and a crusader's gleam.......

To: Lane3 who wrote (43843)	2/7/2002 2:25:49 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

You wrote "There's no reason to expect that a former energy executive, once he became President, might consider the perspectives of non-energy-executive-Americans, the interests of the country at large, in developing the plan." I must say I don't consider this "mild." At least one reason to expect that a former executive of ANY industry, business, or profession MIGHT consider the perspectives of those outside that purview or of the country at large is that while an executive of a business you have a legal duty to represent the interests of the shareholders of your company, while as President you have a duty to represent the citizens and interests of the country. I think there is some reason to consider that anyone running for the office of President from a major party might be expected to understand this. Otherwise, you could equally as well have written, six years ago, "There's no reason to expect that a former governor of Arkansas, once he became President, might consider the perspectives of non-Arkansas residents, the interests of the country at large, in developing his policies." But I suspect you would not have written that. Or am i wrong?