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 : Don't Blame Me, I Voted For Kerry -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DOUG H who wrote (29582)	6/8/2004 12:36:53 PM
From: Orcastraiter	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 81568

I think there is a point at which legitimate questions turn into lunacy. Did Clinton have Vince Foster killed? Was Bush "forewarned" about 9/11. Did a rich kid from Texas do everything he could to shirk in the military, while Rhoades scholar from Arkansas do the same? It's amazing how Clinton keeps showing up in the discussion of Bush. LOL. I think we know the answers to these questions, red herrings or not. The answers are no, no, yes and yes. That said, I do think that how someone has conducted themselves in their past is important. It's not as important as how they conduct themselves today though. In that regard I agree that what's more important is the Bush record of the last 4 years. To me, the questions that have me thinking are, to what extent did business interests drive the decision to go to war in Iraq? What can be done to improve the ability of America to reinvigorate it's manufacturing capabilities to drive domestic incomes? What are we going to do about these legions of Islamic fundies that will do ANYTHING to acheive their goals, which at this time seems to be the removal of ALL Western presence from their region? All good questions indeed. I think we can answer the first one. There's no doubt that business interests played a large part in the war. That's evident by looking at how the war was conducted, who benefited monetarily, who continues to benefit. It's clear to me that the Iraqi people have not benefited monetarily. Yes Saddam is gone, that is good. But the Iraqi's don't have control, and real control is a long ways off. We could have a successful program in Iraq...if we only let the Iraqi people benefit from it. Right now unemployment is 60%...and most of the billions spent on Iraq were distributed to American corporations. As for reinvigorating manufacturing all it takes is getting back to free and fair trade. Right now corporations are taking advantage of cheap labor in the under-developed world. In a way we benefit too from lower prices, but often the middle man is the one that profits most and they profit off the backs of cheap labor. I don't know how long we can mine the cheap labor markets of the world before the trade deficit causes the dollar to implode. The way we are heading we're going to be losing all of our manufacturing base...sucked away to cheap labor. Maybe we will all be able to benefit from the cheap labor...getting in on the middleman's profits somehow. But that is kinda like a form of indentured servitude...paying much less for manufacturing, so that a large portion of the population lives and works in substandard conditions. Environmental concerns are swept under the carpet too. I think the answer lies in leveling the playing field. Some will argue that you can't mess with free markets, but is taking advantage of poor people in the world in our long term interest? And who benefits from this "unfair" trade? I think we need to make sure that imported products are made under fair conditions...then Americans can compete with any nation under those conditions. I think that this notion of fair trade is critically important in sensitive manufacturing areas, especially those in the areas of defense, or defense related industries. We must maintain a healthy manufacturing base for defense considerations. The last question is the big one. The answer largely lies in achieving peace in the middle east. How that can be done is the $64,000 dollar question. But it is most important that all the parties be forced to the negotiating table and that a real plan be hammered out for peace. This region should be one of the most beautiful and wealthiest parts of the world...and it will be once differences can be settled. Personally I think a one state solution should be looked at very hard. That said if a two state solution is the only way to peace...then so be it. I just think that one state solution would be far more productive and unifying in the long run. That would of course require a power sharing arrangement and a reformulation of the current political landscape. More people would benefit from a stronger economy in the region. Peace is the glue needed to hold it together. Peace would be easy...but it would take a new awakening in the people and a willingness to live together. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the pilot light in the middle east. Solve that problem and you extinguish many of the stove top fires. Orca

To: DOUG H who wrote (29582)	6/8/2004 2:31:33 PM
From: American Spirit	Respond to of 81568

Bushies did orchestrate the 2000-2001 energy fraud gougings they called "the energy crisis". It's also going on now. Other than that, the FLorida voter roll scrubbing, the CIA agent outing, the Bin Laudens-Saudis being sent home after 9-11 and maybe how Osama escaped from Tora Bora I see no conspiracies. Certainly nothing the Clintons did smacked of conspiracy, except the people against them who engineered the massive legal battles into Bill's sex life. Calling Clinton a murderer, rapist or drug-dealer is way over the top. That's like saying Bush planned 9-11. PS: I wm loking forward to seeing FARENHEIT 9-11 and watching Bush sit there while the WTC was being attacked. After that I expect an explanation from Bush as to why he did not react to the attacks. Maybe he has a good explanation.