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: tejek who wrote (156384)	12/17/2002 11:42:06 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1578906

It was sold to the American public as helping us get out of recession when, in fact, its greatest impact will be realized 8 or 9 years out and it will benefit mainly the rich. From those in the know, I understand it also was poorly written. Bush pushed to get as much of the benefit in early as he could. Let us keep in mind that it was the liberals who stood in the way of that progress. As to the "writing" of the tax bill, perhaps you're unaware of it, but ALL tax legislation is effectively "written" by the staff of the JCT under the direction of the JCT, as people who understand the interaction of various code sections well enough to write the law. The administration does not, EVER, write tax law. You may want to let "those in the know" know that. His economic policies are pretty non existent or ineffectual as evidenced by the recent firings of his Sec. of the Treasury, the head of the SEC, and his economic advisor. Perhaps you could contrast the economic policy of the current administration with that of, for example, the previous administration? What exactly has this president done or not done that is different from what the previous administration did? They are not exaggerated; he is a racist. The argument that Lott or other Republicans are racists is hollow. One need only look at the president's cabinet to determine whether, in fact, Republicans are racist. Lott goofed. And he is losing his job over it. Byrd goofed. He still has his. That pretty much tells the story about where the racists are in politics.

To: tejek who wrote (156384)	12/18/2002 12:55:37 PM
From: hmaly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1578906

Ted Re.. think your second item is correct, and the third is partially correct.......I don't believe the War on Terrorism is being waged as aggressively as it could be. Now why would you think that? Taking out Saddam and installing a democracy is part of Gw's war on terrorism. As I explained in my posts to Alighieri several wks. ago, Iraq is the best place to start. And just in case you think I am off the wall, read this. http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/02_51/b3813014.htm Especially this part. The fear within the Arab regimes contrasts sharply with the mounting confidence of many Bush officials. These aides want to use a liberated Iraq as a platform to promote democracy, liberal capitalism, and women's rights in these authoritarian states. They argue that poverty and lack of outlets for political expression create a breeding ground for extremists, and that it's time to put an end to this state of affairs. "The Arab world has been exempt from the progress of the 20th century," says one top Bush Administration policymaker. "That is its history but it doesn't have to be its fate. Administration officials pledge that the U.S. will stay in Iraq for as long as it takes to create a model society for the region. Declared Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz in a recent speech: "I believe there is an opportunity here to liberate one of the most talented populations in the Arab world with positive effects throughout the Middle East." This is ambitious stuff--the Mideast desperately needs reform and maybe, if all the pieces fall into place, the Bush team will be proved right. But the Arabs see this attitude as a scary reminder of what has gone before. And this article. http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/02_51/b3813030.htm Q: Are you concerned that such changes could undermine regimes that the U.S. relies on for stability, help on terrorism, and oil? A: It's really a strategic interest of the U.S. to see progress toward representative government and free government and free markets and economic development. Why? Because I think over the long run, that's the source of real stability. The kind of stability that's produced by a government that represses all opposition and economic initiatives is a short-term stasis, which I wouldn't call stability. Eventually you build up the ingredients of a chaotic sort of collapse. That is why the Bush team see Iraq as one of the keys to stability in the ME. You have to get rid of the dictators and monarchies, and install representative gov.s who have the ability to expand the business climate and create jobs. Stable gov.s with job choices will produce stable populations. However, Lott is a Senator and was expected to be the Majority Leader. Those two titles make his racism all that much more deadly. So please, stop your whining. Reps. have a bad name when it comes to race.........and its from their own doings< Not so. Its amazing how you seem to simply ignore history anytime you chose. The simple truth is that the democratic party was the party of the south and racists from the civil war until 1960, when Johnson managed to pass the civil rights acts over the objections of the southern democrats. In fact the rep. you blame for the racist overtones of the rep. party, in fact were southern democrats, who switched parties, after the northern democrats, along with some rep. turned on them by voting for Johnsons liberal programs for the blacks. Now, after a few southern dem. bolted to the republican party, you say the republican party has a history of racism. Not so. A few senators who switched to republicans were racist, but the republican party doesn't have near the history of the democratic party as to racism. http://www.pbs.org/wnet/jimcrow/stories_org_democratic.html The Democratic Party was formed in 1792, when supporters of Thomas Jefferson began using the name Republicans, or Jeffersonian Republicans, to emphasize its anti-aristocratic policies. It adopted its present name during the Presidency of Andrew Jackson in the 1830s. In the 1840s and '50s, the party was in conflict over extending slavery to the Western territories. Southern Democrats insisted on protecting slavery in all the territories while many Northern Democrats resisted. The party split over the slavery issue in 1860 at its Presidential convention in Charleston, South Carolina. Northern Democrats nominated Stephen Douglas as their candidate, and Southern Democrats adopted a pro-slavery platform and nominated John C. Breckinridge in an election campaign that would be won by Abraham Lincoln and the newly formed Republican Party. After the Civil War, most white Southerners opposed Radical Reconstruction and the Republican Party's support of black civil and political rights. The Democratic Party identified itself as the "white man's party" and demonized the Republican Party as being "Negro dominated," even though whites were in control. Determined to re-capture the South, Southern Democrats "redeemed" state after state -- sometimes peacefully, other times by fraud and violence. By 1877, when Reconstruction was officially over, the Democratic Party controlled every Southern state. The South remained a one-party region until the Civil Rights movement began in the 1960s. Northern Democrats, most of whom had prejudicial attitudes towards blacks, offered no challenge to the discriminatory policies of the Southern Democrats. One of the consequences of the Democratic victories in the South was that many Southern Congressmen and Senators were almost automatically re-elected every election. Due to the importance of seniority in the U.S. Congress, Southerners were able to control most of the committees in both houses of Congress and kill any civil rights legislation. Even though Franklin Delano Roosevelt was a Democrat, and a relatively liberal president during the 1930s and '40s, he rarely challenged the powerfully entrenched Southern bloc. When the House passed a federal anti-lynching bill several times in the 1930s, Southern senators filibustered it to death. -- Richard Wormser And this article. http://www.democrats-hd.org/writers/scioneaux/southerndemocrats.pdf

To: tejek who wrote (156384)	12/18/2002 3:32:02 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1578906

I don't believe the War on Terrorism is being waged as aggressively as it could be. Every where we see Al-Qaeda we kill Al-Qaeda. I don't know how the war could be waged more agressively. Re Tax Cut - I think it could have been designed better and I think it should have been bigger and kicked in earlier but getting it through still amounts to "good rating". A better, quicker, larger tax cut would have earned an "excellent" rating It was sold to the American public as helping us get out of recession Its effect is positive in that area. Your right that the effect is week but its there. In any case what it is sold at is a political tactic rather then an indication of how good or bad the policy is. If you want to attack Bush on that attack the tactic then not the policy. and it will benefit mainly the rich Since they pay the vast majority of all federal income taxes it would not be sensible or fair for them to not get a large chunk of any reduction. there is growing evidence that Al Qaeda has regrouped and are stronger than ever What evidence that they are stronger then ever. I haven't even seen an opinion peace suggesting that they are, let alone actual evidence. the US budget is very quickly becoming a financial mess. Mostly due to revenue comming in lower then expected due to the recession and 9/11. Re economy and presidential responsibility for it - No need to go around in circles over this again. I'll just state that I disagree with you. They are not exaggerated; he is a racist. Saying that he is obviously a full blown racist is an exageration. Well, you managed to skip over Germany, Canada and Russia. Russia is not really an ally even if they are no longer an enemy. Germany has become very pacifist lately, I don't see any good reason for us to follow their lead. Canada may not be supporting the move on Saddam much but its not like they hate us or have become our enemy, policy disagreements happen all the time. As for Jesse Jackson, I'll take your word he's a racist. I think he's a jerk that only has some support/power within the black community. He can't pass laws but it can influence them, and he also shakes down companies for contributions to his organization. Accusations of racial bias fade away when they send the check. Reps. have a bad name when it comes to race.........and its from their own doings. Its karma....you get back what you put out. Republicans haven't shown themselves to be any more racist the Dems. I'd even say they are less, but they are also less able to get away with it. Tim