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.

Technology Stocks : Amazon.com, Inc. (AMZN) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Oeconomicus who wrote (157702)	6/5/2003 8:01:37 PM
From: Alomex	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 164684

You sure are reaching in your search for "lies", Al. No I'm not. If I were to claim that Bill Gates and I together are billionaries it would be disingenous and misleading. Your BS detector seems to have a very low setting hence you find such misleading statements perfectly acceptable. We have established that, so unless you have something new to say, lets move on.

To: Oeconomicus who wrote (157702)	6/5/2003 8:51:39 PM
From: Skeeter Bug	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164684

The problem with such a plan is that it really does nothing to stimulate sustainable growth in the economy. But it sure is "fair." please explain how giving more money to the super wealthy to "invest" and create more supply is better for the economy when the economy is in an oversupply condition. please make a cogent argument as to why trickle up is better than trickle down. or are you just repeating stuff that came off a spoon? just say that you believe the elite rich (and i don't mean that negatively, i mean the super rich!) should have the opportunity to pay low single digit income taxes while the working american pays 25-30%. we'll agree to disagree. then explain who will pay all $100s of billions pocketed by the rich since we consistently run deficits now and bush just signed into law that we can push the debt to $7 trillion.

To: Oeconomicus who wrote (157702)	6/5/2003 9:54:29 PM
From: Skeeter Bug	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164684

rd, speaking about being slimy as a stream rock (and clinton sure was - i couldn't stand him!), bush is out touting the necessity of the dividend tax cut so the poor seniors living off dividends won't starve. uh, that's a lie. there are no poor senior living off dividends. one has to have a fairly big nest egg in order to "live off the dividends," by definition. talk about "class warfare!" why doesn't he just say TELL THE TRUTH, THAT THE TOP 1% WILL GET HALF OF THE $400 BILLION AND THE OTHER 99% CAN SCROUNGE FOR THE REST? does he not say it, do you not say it, b/c you know it is wrong? is that why you always try to frame the argument differently? was about to press send and foudn this article - which is right on point... slate.msn.com

To: Oeconomicus who wrote (157702)	6/5/2003 10:03:02 PM
From: GST	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164684

<<"stealing from the children." >> When you are running a deficit, "tax relief" requires additional borrowing and adds to the accumulated deficit. I am not aware of anybody so ignorant of the basic facts of government finances that so as to be unable to grasp this simple fact. The debt will be passed on to the next generation. They will pay, with interest, for every cent given to people today.

To: Oeconomicus who wrote (157702)	6/6/2003 3:33:07 PM
From: GST	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164684

"Truthfulness" of US president on the line over absent Iraqi WMDs: Byrd Fri Jun 6,10:10 AM ET Add Politics - AFP to My Yahoo! WASHINGTON (AFP) - Senator Robert Byrd -- one of the most outspoken critics of US policy in Iraq (news - web sites) -- welcomed calls for a congressional probe into US troops' not having found weapons of mass destruction there, and called into question President George W. Bush (news - web sites)'s "truthfulness" on the matter. "What amazes me is that the president himself is not clamoring for an investigation," Byrd said from the floor of the Senate. "It is his truthfulness that is being questioned. It is his integrity that is on the line," the West Virginia Democrat said. "Yet he has raised no question, expressed no curiosity, about the strange turn of events in Iraq -- expressed no anger at the possibility that he might have been misled." "How is it that the president who was so adamant about the dangers of WMD, has expressed no concern about the whereabouts of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?" Byrd said. Byrd, 85, the longest serving member of the senate -- has served in congress' upper chamber 1959, and served in the US House of Representatives for several years before that. He is not known for being particularly liberal, having belonged once to the anti-integrationist Ku Klux Klan, nor as a pacifist, having been a staunch supporter of the US war in Vietnam. Yet the conservative southern Democrat has become an unlikely hero of anti-war and anti-occupation forces who have e-mailed copies of his florid tirades decrying the US-led war and its postwar management of Iraq around the globe. In one of his most controversial rants, Byrd slammed Bush for donning a military flight jacket while greeting victorious US troops on an aircraft carrier immediately after the completion of the war. "I do not begrudge his salute to America's warriors," Byrd said. "But I do question the motives of a desk-bound president who assumes the garb of a warrior for the purposes of a speech," he said. In Thursday's speech he said he was worried that weapons of mass destruction might indeed have been in Iraq's possession recently, but may now be in the hands of terrorists or another nations hostile to US interests. "The belligerent stance of the United States may have convinced Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) to sell of disperse his weapons to dark forces outside of Iraq," he said. story.news.yahoo.com

To: Oeconomicus who wrote (157702)	6/6/2003 4:13:38 PM
From: GST	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164684

Cheney is accused of pressuring the CIA before war to beef up weapons evidence By Rupert Cornwell in Washington 06 June 2003 Dick Cheney, the Vice-President, and his Chief of Staff Lewis Libby made several visits to the CIA in the months before the Iraq war - which some analysts see as attempts to pressure analysts to bolster calls for military action. The revelation of Mr Cheney's forays to CIA HQ, revealed by The Washington Post, come as the controversy intensifies over whether intelligence was misrepresented to justify the war. Two Senate committees are considering a joint investigation, and Ray McGovern, a former intelligence specialist and member of Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (IPS), said that intelligence used to sell the war "was manipulated, forged or manufactured". Mr Bush entered the fray yesterday, vowing to "reveal the truth" about Iraq's WMD programme. "Saddam Hussein's got a big country to hide them. Well, we'll look," he told troops in Qatar, the last stop on a foreign trip before his return to Washington and the mounting controversy. The visits by Mr Cheney to the CIA will cement the impression that specialists were left in no doubt that hawks expected findings that bore out their views. Last week George Tenet, the CIA director, took the rare step of issuing a public statement defending the quality of his agency's product on Iraq. In an equally unusual appearance before the press, Douglas Feith, the Undersecretary of Defence for Policy, denied that the Pentagon had pressured the CIA to slant its assessments to help the hawks' case. Much of the fingerpointing is being directed at the Office of Special Plans, a unit under Mr Feith that was set up to review intelligence after the 11 September terrorist attacks. In fact, it appears to have turned into an in-house ginger group, tied to Donald Rumsfeld, the Defence Secretary, and his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, and focussed on making the case for links between Saddam and al-Qa'ida and for Iraq's active pursuit of nuclear arms. Mr Feith has rejected what he called a "goulash of inaccuracies", promising to "lay to rest stories that are not true and are beginning to achieve the status of urban legend". However, Mr Feith's theses were publicly undercut last week by Richard Perle, a leading member of the neoconservative group that has been driving Iraq policy under Mr Bush and until recently the chairman of the influential Defence Policy Board. Defending the Office of Special Plans, Mr Perle said that a lot of mistakes had been made by intelligence analysts. The new unit's job was to see whether "there were connections... that had been missed in previous examinations. That is not politicisation. That is not pressure. And the fact is they established beyond any doubt connections that had gone unnoticed in previous analysis". This argument is flatly rejected by the veteran analysts of IPS, who describe what happened before the war as "an intelligence fiasco of monumental proportions", in which evidence had been manipulated to sway Congress in its crucial resolution last autumn that granted Mr Bush virtual carte blanche to deal with Iraq. Even so, the furore here has not reached the proportions it has in Britain. Mr Bush's popularity is high, and as long as it remains so, his party's control of Congress should ensure that hearings do not become too embarrassing. But that could change if Iraq descends into chaos and US forces suffer mounting casualties. 6 June 2003 16:17 news.independent.co.uk