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 : Foreign Policy Discussion Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (2566)	1/22/2003 11:19:25 AM
From: zonder	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 15987

he has never been proven to have lied If his superiors never saw him, what more proof do we need? Let us face the fact that influential people get away with such things. he received an honorable discharge. Could it possibly be that his powerful daddy had something to do with this? :) I also have followed allegations about his business "track record", and have found nothing especially shady. Basically, none of his ventures made any money in the business (except the sports team), but he made loads of money from "investors" who gave him money to approach Bush Sr. That's the general drift of his "business" life. My personal favourite is the 1990 Harken deal, where he got a tip about the company's losses and sold his shares without notifying the authorities (as he is supposed to do), before the expiration of the 6-month lock-up period (where he is not supposed to be able to sell his shares), a week after the firm's lawyers toldd him NOT to sell them, and right before the company announced huge losses. This is called "insider trading" and is a serious crime. thenation.com post-gazette.com If the SEC had thought there was more than a technical violation, it would have followed up, but it did not Yeah. Insider trading is a "technical" violation. One that got Martha Steward hitting her head against the walls as we speak, I bet. Good people do not foment war merely in order to gain profits. You see, that's the problem with using absolutes like "good" and "evil" when talking about real people - politicians, in particular. Who is a good person? One who has never done anything devious? Could such a person survive the Byzantian games of politics and rise to the top? Not so sure... I suggest we refrain from using the Bush administration's religious/childish rhetoric of "good" and "evil" and focus on whether or not countries can start wars for economic gains. The answer to that question is "yes". It has happened in the past and will happen again in the future.