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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (173987)	8/21/2003 6:41:47 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575704

Sorry then......he's in their pockets Could you explain what you mean by that? And also how it relates to the example I gave. If I was running for office (including reelection to the presidency) and the NRA gave me money because they like my position on gun control would I be "in their pockets"? Was Clinton in the pockets of the trial lawyers and the unions? Also if "in their pockets" is substantially different then being bribed then you are conceding that Krugman was wrong when he said Bush was being bribed. If it isn't substantially different then changing your term from "bribed" to "in their pockets" is a meaningless tactic. Significant upper limits makes sense when the possible damage is significant. We've already discussed these contracts. $7 billion per contract? Get real! An upper limit is different then what we actually get spent. In the worst case (which didn't happen) of Saddam destroying whole massive oil fields, $7bil for putting out the fires and repairing the wells would only be a fraction of the cost. Since reality was no where near the worst case the amount spent through these contracts should be far less then $7bil. Tim