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: LindyBill who wrote (75852)	10/8/2004 4:52:07 PM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793822

The raw opportunism of John Kerry POwerline I don't know what to expect from tonight's debate, but one thing we can reasonably anticipate is that Senator Kerry will repeat his charge that President Bush let Osama bin Laden escape at Tora Bora because he "outsourced" the job of capturing OBL to irresponsible and unreliable Afghan war lords. Kerry leveled that charge in the first debate, as did John Edwards. Neither Bush nor Cheney responded. Rich Lowry explains just how unfair and opportunistic this charge is. First, Kerry is only speculating when he says that "we had Osama bin Laden cornered in the mountains of Tora Bora." Tommy Franks disagrees. Second, U.S. forces were present. Third, the reason more U.S. forces weren't involved is because we made a strategic decision not to flood Afghanistan, Soviet style, with troops, but to rely instead on special-forces troops, precision-guided bombs and indigenous forces. One can debate the merits of that decision, but it is unfair for Kerry to do so because he supported it. According to Lowry, Kerry told an interviewer in late 2001 that the United States could avoid making Afghanistan into another Vietnam, "as long as we make smart decisions, and we don't go in and repeat what the British or the Russians tried to do." Then, in mid-December 2001, during the battle of Tora Bora, he supported the administration's strategy stating, "I think we have been smart. I think the administration leadership has done it well, and we are right on track." Indeed, Lowry notes that Kerry cautioned against using too much force: "I am not for a prolonged bombing campaign." Key strategic decisions made by a president during war time are fair game for criticism during an election. But not when the criticism is based on false or unsubstantiated factual claims, and not when the critic is on record as supporting the strategic decision at issue.

To: LindyBill who wrote (75852)	10/8/2004 5:45:12 PM
From: KLP	Respond to of 793822

Plus, the Left constantly bemoans loss of jobs...Advertising is big business and hires thousands of people. Are the Lefties trying to do away with this business as well? it’s difficult to see how prohibiting advertising would ultimately help consumers.

To: LindyBill who wrote (75852)	10/8/2004 7:24:10 PM
From: Alastair McIntosh	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 793822

Of course drug ads benefit the bottom of line of drug companies. Unfortunately they add to the use of pharmaceuticals that are almost useless if not actually harmful. Consider two of the more egregious examles, statins and cox-2 inhibitors. Both are heavily advertised multi-billion dollar drugs. Statins contribute little or nothing to wellness and cox-2 inhibitors are usually no better that other NSAIDS available at a fraction of the cost. Statins produce at best a tiny decrease in long term mortality and even this decrease may be the result of selection bias in the research. Cox-2 inhibitors are widely prescribed for arthritis but should only be used for the 10% of arthritis patients suffering from ulcers or digestive-tract problems. Ibuprofen or naproxene work as well at a much lower cost. Prohibiting "direct to user" drug advertising would be a huge benefit to consumers.