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: i-node who wrote (142777)	2/19/2002 12:09:54 PM
From: brian1501	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1577007

Bush will sign the bill comfortably, however, with the knowledge that the Court will strike the provision down (it is a separable provision). I think you're right, but I will be disappointed. I would much rather him say "This is completely stupid. Try again ->VETO". I'm sure he's being advised to not put himself in the way since it will be a loser in the end anyway. Brian

To: i-node who wrote (142777)	2/19/2002 3:23:47 PM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1577007

It is intuitively obvious to an idiot that this legislation of last week is contrary to good public policy. If you want to ban political advertising altogether, fine. But it is patently stupid to impose arbitrary restrictions as to what someone can say in an ad during the last 60 days of the campaign. I think you shouldn't call anyone an idiot and while we disagree a great deal, I think that rule should include yourself as well. In fact, dissing yourself can be bad for your health even when you ARE an idiot. So, another way you could have said the above that would have been less self denigrating is....."It is intuitively obvious to me [sans idiot]............" No need to thank me!!

To: i-node who wrote (142777)	2/20/2002 2:17:14 AM
From: hmaly	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1577007

David Re..It is intuitively obvious to an idiot that this legislation of last week is contrary to good public policy. <<<<<< I think it is intuitively obvious to every idiot that negative campaigning is bad for all politicians and the political process. This constant smear, smear, smear is bad for the process, because the adds do not tell us who we are voting for or why, They take a vote out of its context, lie about reasons for a vote, and never give the reasons why a vote may have been a necessary vote. There are laws in this country regarding false advertising. Namely you can't mention another companies product, unless you can prove the accuracy of the tests and publish the results accurately. The same should be true of these negative adds. The date of the vote, the context of the vote, the pro and cons of the vote, should be told so that the people can honestly say if the vote was correct or not. The law bans negative adds 60 days before the election , because the target of the adds needs time to respond. I don't allow my salesmen to intentionally speak negatively about any of my competition, because that is bad for business. The political profession should take the same tack, and follow Reagon's rule and never speak ill of a fellow politician. We have an open press, which can ferret out the bad representatives. Politicians shouldn't be turning upon each other. Both they and the profession look bad.