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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (219979)	2/21/2005 12:05:11 AM
From: tejek	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1576251

CDI was founded in 1972 by recently-retired, senior U.S. military officers. CDI became an independent monitor of the Pentagon. The source is very confusing. The URL says 04, the date is 2003, and the asterisk says 2001. So we compare US 2003 with China 2001. If you look further down the page, it says most defense numbers are for the year 2002. The asterisked numbers are the exception to the 2002 rule. The Chinese case is unique. There are many Chinese military owned businesses which generate large profits. I believe the cell phone company is one of those. Huh? So what? There are many American defense companies that also produce consumer goods. What does that have to do with what the gov't is spending or the amount? So are the figures government funding, or total expenditures? Have their expenditures increased since 2001? I suspect that $225 billion is much closer to expenditures that $47 billion your source lists. You might not choose to believe the $322 billion, but if it is right and you are saying they are not a threat, we are setting our nation up for a huge mess. What does it matter? We are talking only a 2-3 year difference from today. Do you think that the Chinese jumped up spending from $65 billion to $400 billion in three years? It takes years to bring a military machine up. The Chinese are investing in that process right now. Our negligence could be very costly. They have taken over several countries already without much comment from the West. They now control Tibet and Burma. They are discriminating against the native of those countries. This is madness. Its this unreasonable, irrational defense of Defense that makes me want to throw up my arms and say....let's split the nation. We'll take the north and you take the south. This kind of insanity has been going on for decades and the right refuses to acknowledge that their fears are no more rational than those of kid who is afraid the boogie man is hiding under his bed. Sorry, Peter, she is not "a useful warrior for the right". She encourages and promotes the schism that is growing between the red and blue voters. She is dangerous and clearly unAmerican. She is no more dangerous than many FMSM commentators on national "news" broadcast. The difference is that she is not promoting the Democrat policy line. Wrong. She diminishes and attacks the lives of billions of people. She is angry and hateful....and dangerous. Look at the difference between how the FMSM handled Eason Jordon and Jeff Guckert. Jordon says very dangerous things and doesn't get mentioned, Guckert asks the same kind of question the FMSM asked Clinton every press conference and gets a spot on the evening news. The FMSM are promoting a divisive line. Ann Coulter calls out their aberrant behavior. You see this as the problem because of your bias. Because Jordon is not an upstart........he has established credibility over years of working in the journalist field. He was willing to jeopardize his job and fall on the sword over what he believes is the truth. Compare that to a Jeff Gannon..........a man with an alias, a would be journalist who also poses as an escort, and an operator of porn on the Web........who easily got a press pass to the WH. And yet you see no difference. I am starting not to trust you. You say you believe in certain values but it seems that when those values are in play depends on the subject and the characters involved. The left has attacked every successful communicator for the right. The louder you get about people like Coulter the more credibility she must have. The leftist unethical are A OK, but let an effective communicator emerge on the right and they must be attacked. I disagree. There are communicators from the right who are not offensive........people like Frist or Buchanan or McCain. I may not believe in their politics but I do not feel angry or slimed after they finish speaking. People like Hannity, Coulter, Rush and O'Reilly do your cause a disservice. They are the equivalent of the mullahs of Iran or the leaders of Hamas. Their language is a language of hate and defiance and arrogance. I am very sorry that you don't see it. If people like you and Tim Fowler who are the more reasonable members of the right don't object to the ugly spin coming from these distasteful people, then there can be no healing of the schism that exists between right and left. LOL! You are listing communicators from the left who happen to bunk on the right. People like Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Teddy Kennedy, and John Kerry are the problem; the left needs more people like Zell Miller and Joe Lieberman to be their spokespersons. The harsh left has caused the schism that exists between the central states and the extremist states. Democrats have been taken over by people who are not interested in unity. McCain is a liberal. Rush Limbaugh is much closer to the heart of the Republican party than left of center John McCain. Pat Buchanan is a left-winger on the issue of freedom for the rest of the world. Is he an isolationist? If Zell Miller were the Democrat candidate, he might get my vote. I could never support a traitor like Kerry. Hillary Clinton is a Socialist; she will lead the Democrat party further into the desert. I give up. You, like many of your colleagues, are suggesting the sky is purple when the rest of us know its blue. ted