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 : Dutch Central Bank Sale Announcement Imminent? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: sea_urchin who wrote (18072)	4/20/2003 12:04:58 PM
From: Gary H	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 80920

Your is the same one as mine but from the other side.

To: sea_urchin who wrote (18072)	4/30/2003 1:35:19 PM
From: yard_man	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 80920

I've looked at some of this conspiracy stuff -- the idea seems inconceivable to me, but suppose for the sake of argument it were true -- what would be the motivation?? Doesn't a terrible bungling and negligence and an attempt to cover up that negligence seem more likely -- I know this sounds just as awful -- but I've often wondered why 3 planes could reach their targets -- a deer in the headlights type of deal is the only thing that makes sense to me -- sure planes are have been scrambled to intercept domestic flights before -- but it is one thing to intercept and another to shoot down a commercial airliner ... Now put that in the short space of time they had to decide. Government and the airlines were both terribly negligent. How could one conclude otherwise (unless one believes conspiracy), but look at the result -- nobody big even lost their jobs. That bothers me, along with the terrible shift in our "defense" strategy -- it was soo darn quick and the populace at large was very comfortable swallowing the shift and buying all the big spending programs, spying programs -- what-have-you. Quite amazing, even for the average US citizen, IMO.

To: sea_urchin who wrote (18072)	4/30/2003 2:04:07 PM
From: yard_man	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 80920

mises.org >>After 9-11, Bush had the idea that the government ought to make some effort to protect American shores from attack—a notable change of priorities for a government that manages to spend $2 trillion a year not doing the only major thing the US Constitution says it ought to do. In any case, Bush proposed reorganizing a whole host of agencies into one mega-bureaucracy—and this despite the enormous failure that 9-11 represented for precisely this bureaucratic approach. We were told that what dozens of agencies and billions couldn't do—namely stop angry extremists armed with box cutters—another agency and billions more could do. <<