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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (72415)	9/21/2004 7:05:34 PM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793817

Viacom Board as Liberal as Dan Many lefty critics often say that because the media are owned by corporations, that makes them conservative. While there are some negative effects that corporate media ownership produces, being conservative is not one of them. Particularly at Viacom where eight of the 13 chairmen of the board donate primarily to Democratic candidates. Two of them have held cabinet positions in Democratic administrations. Given that kind of background, it's no surprise that the Viacom board has not discussed Memogate at all, according to The New York Sun. Don't expect Viacom CEO Sumner Redstone, 80, to support drastic action, either. Over the past few years, Redstone has given $50,000 to Democrats and just $2,000 to Republicans, both of whom serve on committees related to Viacom's business. Posted by RatherBiased.com mudvillegazette.com

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (72415)	9/21/2004 7:09:42 PM
From: Lane3	Respond to of 793817

you only have to find one significant mismatch to declare it a forgery Yes, that makes sense. It would have to be a critical mismatch, one that is absolute.

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (72415)	9/26/2004 8:45:54 AM
From: Mary Cluney	Respond to of 793817

<<<No, it always is a lower bar to prove something is a forgery than to prove it is authentic. That makes sense if you think about it.>>> In the same way, it is much easier to prove you were some place for six months of your life than it is to prove you were not some place for six months of your life. To prove you were there all you would have to do is produce some pay stubs and perhaps just one person in your unit that can testify that you were physically there with them. That would end all speculation about your honesty and integrity. To prove that you were not there would be very difficult - as CBS is painfully about to find out. They are not going to find a picture of you not there that could support their charge.