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.

Pastimes : The New Qualcomm - write what you like thread. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: foundation who wrote (5777)	2/13/2003 7:43:45 PM
From: DWB	Respond to of 12247

Wow... I would have thought someone as perceptive as you are on the dishonesty of the GSM guild and it's machinations would be able to handle this... ok, here it is at its most basic... 1991 - War with Iraq - Totally legal - Public Law 102-1 = authorization 2002 - War with Iraq - Totally legal - Public Law 107-243 = authorization Public Law 102-1 and Public Law 107-243 read like variations on the same theme. So why the problem now, other than this is what I said at the beginning... a purely political move by a bunch of whining Democrats (what, were Barney Frank, and Maxine Waters not available???) who wanted to have their vote, but now don't want to live with the results, and are trying to get around it using a liberal judiciary... meanwhile people like yourself try to hide behind semantics... DWB

To: foundation who wrote (5777)	2/13/2003 8:37:28 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12247

Well Ben, a couple of things we can conclude from this discussion is that cyberspace is simply amazing and QUALCOMM is a primary beneficiary of the construction of it into the mobile realm. Another is that the USA is pretty damn good because there really are laws and people do get to argue over all this stuff and there are various parts of government and it works pretty well. 10 years ago, I wouldn't have had any of this information right here on the screen. 10 years from now, I'll be able to follow it while I'm out and about. For now, I'm deaf, dumb and blind when I walk out the door. [Other than a high-priced cellphone, which is little consolation]. Mqurice

To: foundation who wrote (5777)	2/13/2003 9:01:44 PM
From: DWB	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12247

So you're saying that the only problem is that the '91 and '02 resolutions, don't specifically have the words in all caps (I'm not yelling) "THE USA DECLARES WAR ON IRAQ RIGHT NOW"? Do you know of a reference on the web, quoting the founding fathers on the mandatory wording for a war resolution? I'd love to read it....Maybe something from Thomas Jefferson or James Madison...? And were this to come to pass, what difference would it make? This is the thinnest of veils covering the truth. Both of those resolutions authorized war in accordance with the constitution. I think that's blatantly obvious. However, I don't think either of us is going to convince the other to change their opinion, so let us just agree to disagree... DWB P.S. I must say that I find it exceedingly ironic that a party that can find the "implicitly expressed" right to abortion, while demanding a nonexplicit wording that is as plain as day on gun ownership, is now striving to make sure we dot every i and cross every t per the Constitution...