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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: FaultLine who wrote (127903)	3/31/2004 1:29:30 AM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

THIS is a nonpoliticial thread????? If foreign affairs aren't political, WHAT ARE THEY???? Let's go right to the sources. moveon.org truthout.org Gimme a break. That's the leftwing version of what you are objecting to.

To: FaultLine who wrote (127903)	4/1/2004 2:26:25 PM
From: GST	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

Top Focus Before 9/11 Wasn't on Terrorism Thu Apr 1, 9:25 AM ET Add Top Stories - washingtonpost.com to My Yahoo! By Robin Wright, Washington Post Staff Writer On Sept. 11, 2001, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice (news - web sites) was scheduled to outline a Bush administration policy that would address "the threats and problems of today and the day after, not the world of yesterday" -- but the focus was largely on missile defense, not terrorism from Islamic radicals. The speech provides telling insight into the administration's thinking on the very day that the United States suffered the most devastating attack since the 1941 bombing of Pearl Harbor. The address was designed to promote missile defense as the cornerstone of a new national security strategy, and contained no mention of al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden (news - web sites) or Islamic extremist groups, according to former U.S. officials who have seen the text. story.news.yahoo.com

To: FaultLine who wrote (127903)	6/5/2004 2:19:01 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Respond to of 281500

FL.. I think that's a bad policy to outlaw certain news sources unless it can be proven that they are presenting contrived facts.. It should not be the messenger that is confronted, but the message being relayed. Maybe they are biased, but so is every newspaper.. Hell, I read the Washington Post AND the Washington Times almost every day, if only to see what stories the other failed to publish. But it you're going to target "messengers", then maybe it should be the individuals who post inane and obviously non-factual material. And I've been seeing quite a bit of stuff that's non-sensical, especially with regard to Micheal Moore etc.. I'll try and point it out in the future since I now am aware that you have this policy. Hawk