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 : Ask Michael Burke -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: benwood who wrote (98656)	4/28/2003 1:10:16 PM
From: Skeeter Bug	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 132070

ben, i think they picked a losing battle and won't admit defeat. therefore, they spend their time justifying a losing position. part of that losing position is putting france up as some kind of righteous nation that only had international interests in mind. imho, the evidence is pretty clear. saddam owed france $6 billion. france tried to make iraq a nuclear power back in the 80s (shows their "wisdom"). france was giving saddam USD secrets wrt this war effort. france was profiting off of the oil for food program. france, obviously, didn't care one iota about the people of iraq and the burden saddam put on them. no "thank you chirac banners have been seen in iraq, have they?" -g- wrt fox, one can shout down all they want and it isn't that big a deal - UNLESS they are right and it resonates. THEN ya got a problem. i actually enjoy fox. i don't like hannity much as he's a cheerleader. i like colmes better b/c he thinks more. i often disagree with both of 'em. o'reilly is entertaining - and i often disagree with him, too. he often has folks who disagree with him b/c he wants the argument... and i like that. put it out and let me decide. what is your view re: cnn trading their "news" as an outlet for saddam's propaganda in return for access to baghdad? surely you can't support that. as egregious as that is, though, you didn't mention cnn with the implication it wasn't fair in its coverage. just fox. i think the dems need to pick their arguments better. if they did that - and were right - no amount of shouting down would hurt them. rather, it would play poorly for fox - or whoever. let's get a dem on o'reilly and explain the virtues of "trickle up" economics and why that is better than trickle down for the economy. explain why bush is full of hot air. explain that 1% of the folks own 40% of america so it is fair they pay about 40% of the taxes. they need to stop trying to say that iraqis were better off under state sanctioned torture and a police force with a HUGE economic interest in torture and murder. better arguments will lead to better results, imho.