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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: unclewest who wrote (927)	5/12/2003 9:25:02 AM
From: JohnM	Respond to of 794549

Well, uw, whatever other portions of your body are in good or ill shape, your typing fingers appear to be well exercised. If they are an index of good health, you've got it, guy. The heart of your argument in the piece to which I'm responding is that all the terrorism of the 90s should have alerted the US to 9-11. Fine. Good point. The only problem with that point is (a) it does not involve, in and of itself, increasing expenditure on a military to fight large armies, (b) the only serious discussion of that terrorism resulting in attacks on the US mainland were in obscure places like the Clinton appointed committee headed by Rudman and Hart, and (c) neither the Clinton nor the Bush II folk did anything serious about expenditures for domestic security. None of that says we should continue to increase expenditures for large army attacks; none of it says there is any justification for a defense budget that is more than the combined expenditures of the next 15 countries. Yep, still obscene. I've got peace in my heart this morning, as the saying goes. Saw the Picasso-Matisse exhibit at the Museum of Modern Art on Saturday evening. Wonderful stuff. Better than watching the waves from the shores of the Outer Bank.