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 : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: lurqer who wrote (25275)	8/12/2003 3:22:25 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 89467

From: LindyBill A right wing blogger asked 35 left wing and 35 right wing bloggers to list "The 20 worst figures in American History." I thought the lists, and the comparision of the two, to be interesting. RIGHT WING SELECTION: Honorable Mentions: Ted Bundy (5), Jane Fonda (5), John Wayne Gacy (5), John Walker Lindh (5), Joe McCarthy (5), Michael Moore (5), Boss Tweed (5) 17) Franklin Delano Roosevelt (6) 17) John Walker (6) 17) Lee Harvey Oswald (6) 17) Robert Byrd (6) 16) Aldrich Ames (7) 14) Richard Nixon (8) 14) Aaron Burr (8) 12) Al Sharpton (9) 12) Charles Manson (9) 8) Timothy McVeigh (10) 8) Lyndon Johnson (10) 8) Hillary Clinton (10) 8) John Wilkes Booth (10) 7) Alger Hiss (12) 6) Noam Chomsky (13) 4) Jesse Jackson (14) 4) Jimmy Carter (14) 3) Bill Clinton (15) 2) Benedict Arnold (19) 1) The Rosenbergs (15) & Julius Rosenberg (5) (20 total votes) LEFT WING SELECTION: Honorable Mentions: Boss Tweed (5), Roger Taney (5), James Earl Ray (5), Charles Manson (5), Rush Limbaugh (5), Jerry Falwell (5), Roy Cohn (5), Dick Cheney (5), John C. Calhoun (5) 20) The Rosenbergs (3) + Julius Rosenberg (3) (6 total votes) 20) Pat Robertson (6) 20) Oliver North (6) 20) William Randolph Hearst (6) 20) Aaron Burr (6) 20) Aldrich Ames (6) 18) George Lincoln Rockwell (7) 18) Robert McNamara (7) 14) Richard Mellon Scaife (8) 14) Lee Harvey Oswald (8) 14) Charles Coughlin (8) 14) Strom Thurmond (8) 13) Ronald Reagan (9) 12) George Wallace (10) 11) Andrew Jackson (12) 9) Jefferson Davis (13) 9) George W. Bush (13) 6) Benedict Arnold (14) 6) Henry Kissinger (14) 6) John Wilkes Booth (14) 3) Timothy McVeigh (16) 3) Nathan Bedford Forrest (16) 3) J. Edgar Hoover (16) 2) Richard Nixon (25) 1) Joseph McCarthy (26) rightwingnews.com

To: lurqer who wrote (25275)	8/12/2003 3:24:43 PM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 89467

<NYT> Inventing a Quagmire BY JAMES TARANTO Monday, August 11, 2003 2:07 p.m. EDT We missed this last week, but it's so stunning that it's worth highlighting even a few days late. The corrections column of Thursday's New York Times carried the following "editor's note": An article on Sunday about attacks on the American military in Iraq over the previous two days, attributed to military officials, included an erroneous account that quoted Pfc. Jose Belen of the First Armored Division. Private Belen, who is not a spokesman for the division, said that a homemade bomb exploded under a convoy on Saturday morning on the outskirts of Baghdad and killed two American soldiers and their interpreter. The American military's central command, which releases information on all American casualties in Iraq, said before the article was published that it could not confirm Private Belen's account. Later it said that no such attack had taken place and that no American soldiers were killed on Saturday. Repeated efforts by The Times to reach Private Belen this week have been unsuccessful. The Times should not have attributed the account to "military officials," and should have reported that the command had not verified the attack. Consider that: The New York Times is acknowledging that it published a fabricated account of American casualties in Iraq. There's no reason to doubt the Times' contention that its source, as opposed to its reporter, was behind the original fabrication, but it seems fair, based on the paper's account, to say that the Times "sexed up" its reporting by promoting a single private to "military officials" (plural) and by failing to note Centcom's doubts, much less wait for confirmation before running with the story. (The original article is no longer available free on the Times Web site, but here's a later version that appeared in the Tri-Valley Herald of Pleasanton, Calif.) The Times, of course, used its news pages as well as its editorials to crusade against the liberation of Iraq, and it's hard not to interpret this latest foul-up as reflecting an unhealthy eagerness to believe Iraq is a quagmire producing large numbers of casualties. Anyway, remember this the next time some Times editorial or op-ed columnist raises troubling questions about the Bush administration's credibility. opinionjournal.com

To: lurqer who wrote (25275)	8/12/2003 3:29:16 PM
From: RealMuLan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 89467

beats me. Especially when I read this sentence "The Babylon program will focus on low-population, high-terrorist-risk languages that will not be supported by any commercial enterprise" since China has the largest population on this planet, and has never involved in any terrorist activities. So that alleged focus may be just a smoking screen. The real purpose for this project is actually for any potential threat to the US, including economical threat. If you read US newspapers these couple of days, you should know something about the alleged "China espionage and China threat alarms". Maybe that has something to do with it even though these allegations are completely unfounded. english.peopledaily.com.cn There is nothing new for this type of allegation. The US first just thought China would collapse before it becomes stronger, and then suddenly realize that won't happen, so they switch to the "China threat" theory. Personally, I think this is just another way to waste US taxpayers' money on some Phantom enemies, and in this case, they chose >22% of the world population. This reminds me of the "sound" US immigration policy a couple of years back, which stated something like any Chinese were qualified to apply political Asylum in the US if they were forced to have abortion (for the 2nd baby) and that literally put most of 1.3 billion Chinese under the US political asylum umbrella<g> I bet the project would stop running until the US taxpayers' money is running out, which is much closer than many people can realize.