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 : Stop the War! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: rrufff who wrote (16439)	5/1/2003 1:32:44 PM
From: zonder	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21614

You basically just repeat your prior posts when challenged I would not, if you understood them. Your point is basically that precedent says things are done this way, so they will continue to be done this way. You see? You have NOT understood. Re-read this part: In a world where a new government can ignore the debt of a previous government, no country will be able to find debt, and when it is extended, it will be VERY expensive, since it has to incorporate the risk that it may not be paid back. Your idea not only lacks historical and legal basis, but also is not according to "common interests". Message 18903115 Between you and Ilmarien, this could go on ad infinitem. I am sorry you find correspondence with me tiring. That was not my intention. By the way, that would be "ad infinitum". suggest times are different and actions and reactions to terrorism will change. You guys did not discover terrorism, I hope you realize. A lot of countries suffered terrorism and still other countries paid their debts. It's galling that I hear "but now there's terrorism" in every argument for twisting the world according to Bush administration's wishes. America was attacked. So were a lot of other countries before it. You guys need to snap out of the shock by now. I agree that we disagree? Are you happy? Satisfied? Hm. I see you are under the impression that my happiness or satisfaction depends on this little conversation. That we disagree was clear from the beginning. And it would be a much more interesting conversation if you could address what I have said rather than say "we disagree".