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: Road Walker who wrote (177951)	11/13/2003 7:11:55 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576642

First, you would argue with a rock about moss. I also believe in freedom of speech. But US politic campaign have been reduced to sound bite, image crap. No substance, no issues, and certainly no truth. These guys will be doing their damndest to produce an image, and avoid anything that will offend anyone. I don't understand your point, or at least a point that fits as a response to "Even if they have no value they should be able to run them." Your paragraph seems to be indicating that they have no value. I don't think I agree (although I don't think they are usually very valuable) but assuming for the sake of argument that they have no value to you and no value to anyone in terms of making the political debate more informed does that mean they should be banned, or heavily regulated? I'm unsure of your opinion on this. In a Presidential campaign, I expect most folks will know who the candidates are. The majority of elections are presidential elections. And even in a presidential election Ross Perot needed to spend a lot of money to even have the flimisest of chances. The only way to clean it is to level the playing field, allow equal dollars to both side. But that won't work... as I said before, a problem without a solution. I'm not sure the government should even be in the business of leveling the playing field, even if I thought that the steps needed to do so would be just and constitutional, and if the attempt would work. Tim

To: Road Walker who wrote (177951)	11/13/2003 10:33:49 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576642

First, you would argue with a rock about moss. I also believe in freedom of speech. But US politic campaign have been reduced to sound bite, image crap. No substance, no issues, and certainly no truth. These guys will be doing their damndest to produce an image, and avoid anything that will offend anyone. JF, I think I have figured out where you stand on this. You're in favor of freedom of speech as long as you get to decide who can say what. Yeah, I'm for that.

To: Road Walker who wrote (177951)	11/13/2003 10:57:17 PM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1576642

First, you would argue with a rock about moss. That's an excellent way of putting it. <g> ted

To: Road Walker who wrote (177951)	11/13/2003 11:58:12 PM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1576642

<font color=brown> So which one do you think Bush has his sights on for the next war...........Syria or Iran?<font color=black> **************************************************** news.ft.com IAEA at odds with US over Iran By Mark Huband in London and Bayan Rahman in Tokyo Published: November 14 2003 4:00 \| Last Updated: November 14 2003 4:00 The UN's nuclear watchdog yesterday rejected US criticism of a crucial report on Iran's nuclear programme, which stated that no evidence had been found that Iran had been trying to build a nuclear bomb. John Bolton, US undersecretary of state, condemned the report by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) this week, saying that the absence of evidence was "simply impossible to believe". <font color=red>Diplomats have been seeking to defuse a row between the hawkish Mr Bolton and the IAEA over the issue. "We are getting indications that Mr Bolton's comments don't necessarily reflect the US line. He is something of a loose cannon," said a western diplomat yesterday.<font color=black> The report, which will be presented to the IAEA board on November 20, underlines that the IAEA itself remains uncertain of Iran's intentions. While acknowledging the lack of evidence of nuclear weapons programmes, the report states: "Given Iran's past pattern of concealment, it will take some time before the agency is able to conclude that Iran's nuclear programme is exclusively for peaceful purposes." "It's very difficult at this point to draw any conclusions about Iran's intentions," said a senior diplomat. "But I think everybody agrees that the most effective way to continue dealing with this is to keep the IAEA inspectors fully engaged in Iran." The nuclear issue will be on the agenda today when Kamal Kharrazi, Iran's foreign minister, holds talks with Junichiro Koizumi, the Japanese prime minister, in Tokyo. "We certainly would like to encourage Iran to be forthcoming and to make itself open to outside inspection," a Japanese foreign ministry official said yesterday. US suspicions of Iran's nuclear programme have forced Japan to delay signing a $2bn oil deal.** Japan won first negotiating rights to the Azadegan oilfield in what was seen as a diplomatic feat that would help its drive to secure energy supplies. But under US pressure, it allowed the June deadline to lapse without signing an agreement and surprised Tehran by sponsoring the IAEA resolution that pushed Iran to come clean on its nuclear programme. A person close to the Japanese government's energy negotiations said: "Iran would like to know whether Japan is still serious [about Azadegan] after it agreed in principle to sign up to the IAEA's stricter agreement." But Japanese officials indicated that Iran would need to implement its pledge to co-operate before any agreement could be concluded. Iran has recently entered talks with French, Chinese and other international oil companies but has continued to negotiate with Japan in the hopes that an agreement would lead to further Japanese investment. Mohammad Khatami, Iran's president, was reported last month as saying that Japan still had priority in the talks even though its first-negotiating rights had lapsed.

To: Road Walker who wrote (177951)	11/14/2003 4:55:13 AM
From: Joe NYC	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576642

John, In a Presidential campaign, I expect most folks will know who the candidates are. Of course. For example, I have been watching McNeil Lehrer Newshour daily, and I can write an essay on where candidates Dean and Kuchich differ on Iraq policy. And I am a typical American. I eat grits for breakfast, chew tobacco, eat beef jerky throughout the day, eat a gallon of ice creem for dinner (Low fat, all sugar) I eat it while watching McNeil Lehrer, and sip some Coke from a 2 liter bottle (Diet of course - no sugar, only coffeine). After McNeil Lehrer, I generally get a bag of potato chips (Family size, no salt, all fat) and switch to C-Span to catch some debates. Pay attention. These guys spend more on marketing than P&G spends on one of their brands. That's clearly wrong. Question of who represents us in Washington and the State House is nowhere near as important as decision between the Tide and ALL, therefore the campaign spending limits should be tightened further. Joe