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 : GENEVA ACCORD -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (64)	12/7/2003 3:21:40 AM
From: Raymond Duray	Respond to of 190

Nadine, Hey, I liked that. :) Reducto ad absurdum doesn't quite describe your logical fallacy here. Can you help me out with this one..... what do you call it when you advance a "straw man" argument and keep the truth conveniently hidden off stage in the shell game. Let's talk about reality, not your spin or the perception of the easily deceived American public. Here's one example of many that fit the same pattern. At the Wye River negotiations, the media was full of positive comments during the meeting. Upon the unsuccessful termination of negotiations, the American media was full of rebuke for Yasser Arafat. And not one single word about the last minute changes to the demands that Barak was making for concessions which would have amounted to nothing but a donation by the Palestinians of water rights and land swaps that would have been suicidal to any eventual state of Palestine. I do deeply resent that the U.S. corporate media is engaged in a disinformation campaign to keep the American public the "Mushrooms of the Middle East". Mushrooms? you ask........ The media is engaged, as court stenographers/propagandists, at keeping the U.S. public in the dark and fed a lot of horse-manure.

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (64)	12/8/2003 4:02:14 AM
From: GUSTAVE JAEGER	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 190

Re: Let's take a quick look at the leadership of the Americans, Israelis and Palestinians for the last 30 years. America: Nixon. Ford. Carter. Reagan. Bush. Clinton. Bush II. Israel: Meir. Shamir. Perez. Begin. Rabin. Perez. Netanyahu. Barak. Sharon. I don't think that the "resident in the White House" is the main variable in the US equation.... Of course, domestically speaking, the US Prez does have some leeway: he can cut taxes, issue Executive Orders, appoint (supreme) justices, etc... However, when it comes to foreign politics, the President must face a bureaucratic inertia of sorts --he just can't make a U-turn on any major foreign issue. And that's especially true for an American president whose tenure is limited to four years or eight years if re-elected. Hence it's been customary for US presidents to wait until their re-election to engage in any "reshuffling" of sensible issues... Such was the case for JFK in 1963 as regards the civil rights... Anyway, bureaucratic inertia is rather substantial in the US... Remember that you had the same FBI director for 48 years!!!!! J. Edgar Hoover directed the BI (renamed FBI in 1935) from 1924 until his death in 1972... Your Supreme Court Chief Justice was appointed by... Nixon in 1971!!!!() Not to mention the Pentagon's clout and the US's sprawling military-intelligence apparatus... Really, the US prez is but a pawn, however important, among them. Besides, your logic is flawed when applied to royalties... Let's take a quick look at... say, Britain? Her Majesty Queen Elisabeth II for the past 50 years! Japan, another US ally: Emperor Hiro Hito (crowned in 1926) and son Akihito... Holland? Queen Beatrix... Belgium? Leopold III, Baldwin, and Albert II... Spain? Francesco Franco and King Juan Carlos. Contrariwise, a constantly alternating leadership doesn't entail an alternating foreign policy --for instance, what was the US policy towards Cuba since 1961? Embargo. Embargo. Embargo. Embargo. Embargo.... Gus () In 1971, an ailing Supreme Court Justice John Harlan retired and Nixon nominated Rehnquist to replace him. The Senate approved his nomination by a vote of 68-26 and Rehnquist was sworn into the court in January 1972. Rehnquist served as an associate justice until 1986 when Chief Justice Warren Berger retired and President Ronald Reagan nominated Rehnquist to head up the high court. Despite concerns from liberals in the Senate about what Rehnquist's conservative philosophy would mean to the high court, he was approved by a vote of 65-33. [...] pbs.org