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: Edscharp who wrote (32999)	12/18/2003 5:34:50 PM
From: Raymond Duray	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 89467

Afghanistan and Iraq seemed the most compelling and pressing given the events of 911. If 15 of the 19 purported hijackers (several of whom are still alive) were reported to be from Saudi Arabia why in god's name does it make sense to attack Afghanistan and Iraq? They are not Saudi Arabia. They are not where the alleged perps came from. You logical abilities seem remarkably lacking. Not to mention the fact that the official story on 9/11 is preposterous and riddled with holes any intelligent investigator could drive Mack Trucks through. Your faith in George Bush and his lies is woefully misplaced. You need to start to think for yourself. Get out more often on the Web. Read what is going on beyond the lies and propaganda that the corporate media are stuffing down your eyeballs as if you were a sausage to be stuffed. Be more skeptical. You'll find that it doesn't hurt, and you're going to be a lot more acceptable company around intelligent human beings.

To: Edscharp who wrote (32999)	12/18/2003 7:11:47 PM
From: lurqer	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 89467

First let's make that lurqer, not lurger.<g> I specifically asked about socialism, because there is little to be gained by discussing such an obvious target as communism. When you say "Capitalism produces wealth, jobs, innovation and opportunities for the ambitious and motivated. Socialist systems do not.", I could counter that unfettered regressive capitalism (Corporatism) produces benefits only for a tiny oligarchy, and the bulk of the populace is left in squalor - from which there is little chance of escape. OTOH, you are right that socialism, carried to the extreme, is stultifying. So for discussion purposes, let's establish a spectrum of Communism, Socialism, B, Corporatism, Fascism - where B stands for that elusive balance point in the middle. Then, we could try to define what the characteristics of that balance point should be. One way to consider these characteristics is through the concept of opportunity. Too far toward Corporatism and too small of a fraction of society will ever have the chance to grow; too far towards Socialism, and too much of the society has its growth stunted. Neither Socialism nor Corporatism will produce the sort of vibrant, healthy society that can win in an increasingly competitive world. I'll leave the Iraqi discussion for another post. All, JMO. lurqer P.S. An example of that quest for B.

To: Edscharp who wrote (32999)	12/18/2003 7:34:11 PM
From: Mannie	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 89467

<I will never understand why he tempted fate and the Americans by defying UN inspections. Maybe you could be good enough to answer this mystery for.> 1. The ME is a dangerous neighborhood, and Saddam had a history of not being very kind to his neighbors, it was suicide to tell everyone how weak he was. 2. Huge ego.

To: Edscharp who wrote (32999)	12/18/2003 11:56:59 PM
From: lurqer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 89467

Apologies. In haste (a domestic problem), I failed to include the URL of my example of the quest for B. forbes.com lurqer

To: Edscharp who wrote (32999)	12/19/2003 10:29:03 AM
From: lurqer	Respond to of 89467

An update on the WMDs Talk of resignation as pace of search slows Weapons hunters are spending more time on base, intelligence experts have been reassigned to work on the counterinsurgency, and the man leading a search for chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons that has been fruitless so far is thinking of stepping down. A nine-month search for the weapons of mass destruction President Bush said he went to war to destroy has been conducted by a succession of US teams that have failed to find any chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons. The lack of evidence has led critics to suggest the Bush administration either mishandled or exaggerated its knowledge of Iraq's arsenal. White House officials at times have said that weapons were found, or that evidence of programs, rather than actual weapons, would be enough for them. Still, nothing substantive has materialized and after an exhaustive search, the weapons hunt appears to have slowed. "For a while this place was really active, but that's changed in the last month," said Charles McKay, a member of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency who has been involved in the search since May. ... lurqer