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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (675022)	3/13/2005 7:54:57 PM
From: tonto	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Huh? Even our small town newspaper reported it. It is all over...I suggest you check out the facts before you post such disingenuous information in the future.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (675022)	3/13/2005 7:59:36 PM
From: George Coyne	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Why does the New York Times report this story. Because they are so desperate to trash Bush that they will blow up 2 year old news. But you knew that.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (675022)	3/13/2005 9:41:25 PM
From: Wayners	Respond to of 769670

Fox news represent ONE outlet out of 10,000 that are controlled by the leftists with the Associated Press. You want to explain why the AP didn't pick up on it?

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (675022)	3/13/2005 10:23:12 PM
From: PROLIFE	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

You know the answer...NYT might as well be AlJazeera West.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (675022)	3/13/2005 10:40:07 PM
From: Hope Praytochange	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

philippines withrew tropps from iraq last NOV -- and here is the new story: Muslim Radicals Kill Guards, Hole Up in Manila Jail By REUTERS Filed at 10:09 p.m. ET MANILA (Reuters) - Islamic radicals were holding out at a police camp in Manila on Monday after snatching weapons from their guards while being served breakfast and shooting dead two of them in an escape attempt, police said. Police officials said the prisoners, including several suspected members of the Abu Sayyaf militant group, had occupied the second storey of a four-storey police building in the suburb of Taguig and could be holding fellow prisoners hostage. One prisoner was killed in the gunbattle and two guards were wounded, Manila police chief Avelino Razon told reporters. The building had been surrounded by police and SWAT teams as the prisoners waited for a Muslim congressman and the governor of the Muslim autonomous area in the southern Philippines to listen to their demands. ``We believe they are Abu Sayyaf,'' said Razon, referring to an Islamic militant group which has links with the al Qaeda network of Osama bin Laden. He said two guards were killed after the prisoners grabbed a handgun from one of them as they delivered breakfast early on Monday morning. Police had earlier said three guards were killed. Police said the prisoners appeared to be led by Alhamser Limbong, alias ``Kosovo,'' who is on trial for the kidnapping of tourists and workers from the Dos Palmas beach resort in 2001 and who is suspected of beheading one of the American hostages. He has also been charged with helping to carry out a bomb attack on a ferry near Manila last year that killed at least 116 people. Police said there were about 130 suspected members of the Abu Sayyaf out of 400 prisoners being held at the camp, although only about 10 appeared to be involved in the escape attempt. Around 100 prisoners were still on the second storey. ``Not all of them are part of this plan,'' Razon told television. ``A large proportion of them would like to surrender.'' Police helicopters were overhead and an armored personnel carrier was parked alongside the building. The militants contacted local radio by telephone and demanded to speak with a Muslim congressman, the governor of the Muslim autonomous region and with Robin Padilla, a local film star popular among Muslims because he has converted to Islam. Witnesses said the congressman and Governor Parouk Hussein had arrived at the camp. The Philippines is overwhelmingly Roman Catholic but has a small Muslim minority. Most of the country's Muslims live in the south of the archipelago and some Islamic groups have been fighting for independence for decades. The Abu Sayyaf claimed responsibility for three coordinated bomb attacks in Manila and southern Mindanao island on Feb. 14 that killed 13 people and wounded more than 100. The attacks came as the Philippine military fought Abu Sayyaf militants in the group's southern stronghold of Jolo island in the worst fighting the country has seen in two years. nytimes.com

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (675022)	3/14/2005 5:51:44 AM
From: JDN	Respond to of 769670

Kenneth, for Christs sake, that is OLD NEWS why in the world does anyone give a damn anymore. Whats DONE IS DONE. Yep, I agree it was a SNAFU, but too late now. You wanna blame Bush, go ahead (though I think it is more likely a local commanders error), Bush is a LAME DUCK. If I were you I'd spend my time now babbling about Condi Rice. jdn

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (675022)	3/14/2005 11:56:26 AM
From: DizzyG	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

If I were you, Kenneth, I wouldn't tout this story too hard. :) Based on what I read, this story indicates and supports the notion that there were WMD's in Iraq and makes Bush look good. Remember the media template, Kenneth...if it makes George Bush look good, bury the story. :) Diz-

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (675022)	3/14/2005 12:10:25 PM
From: DizzyG	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

BTW, Kenneth...I took a stroll through your last 50 posts on this thread. All were filled with partisan criticism yet lacked anything that remotely looked like solutions or ideas to solve problems. You, like your party, have run out of gas. The last election shows that the US electorate views your party as petty and irrelevant But hey, don't let me stop you from ranting. Diz-

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (675022)	3/18/2005 7:31:25 AM
From: Hope Praytochange	Respond to of 769670

The Clean Air Follies Continue President Bush has no reason to act ashamed on the environment. Friday, March 18, 2005 12:01 a.m. EST One of these days it would be nice if the Bush Administration finally decided whether it really believes in the power of markets in environmental policy. The EPA has issued several rules over the past couple of years--two of them within the past week--intended to build on the successful "cap-and-trade" philosophy first articulated in the 1990 revisions to the Clean Air Act. The basic idea is that, rather than government mandating pollution-control for every source, it would be better simply to set overall emissions goals and let markets and human ingenuity figure out how to achieve the target. One new rule extends this policy from controlling acid rain to controlling urban smog and cancer-causing particulates. The second new rule targets mercury for the first time. These regulations will no doubt lead to big improvements, just as the 1990 rules did. Sulfur dioxide emissions are down about 40% compared with 1980 levels, and at half the cost of doing so through the command-and-control approach. Self-styled environmentalists predicted disaster about cap-and-trade back in 1990, so it's hardly surprising that they are doing so again. What is bizarre is that the Bush Administration continues to employ these same arguments against the cap-and-trade philosophy in a set of EPA-driven lawsuits against electric utilities. The issue in these cases--more than two dozen--is a set of rules dating from the 1977 Clean Air Act amendments known as New Source Review. They were intended to compel "new" sources of pollution--not existing ones--to install pollution-control technologies. And so everyone understood until the mid-1990s, when Bill Clinton's EPA suddenly labeled as "new" sources of pollution any power plants that installed a new turbine or did even minor modifications. These can be as miniscule as replacing ducts valued at less than 0.1% of the cost of a new power plant. The Bush Administration understood the contempt for the law displayed by this Clinton interpretation, and in 2003 it issued rules clarifying what kind of modification would and wouldn't trigger application of NSR. But at the same time it continued to pursue the old Clinton-era cases in court--and for no other discernable reason than fear of bad publicity from the environmentalists. Yet NSR is the paradigmatic example of the old command-and-control regulation. In arguing that it must be applied to the various power plants now in question, the Administration is arguing the opposite of its public policy position, which is that the cap-and-trade system is sufficient. And what political credit has the Administration received for selling its policy soul in this way? Less than zero. Consider the environmentalist reaction to this week's new mercury rule. "This is the most dishonest, dangerous and illegal rule I have ever seen come out of the EPA," says John Walke of the Natural Resources Defense Council. "It's unconscionable EPA is allowing power companies to trade in a powerful neurotoxin," says S. William Becker, who represents two groups of local environmental regulators. Mr. Becker at least is articulating a position with a shred of plausibility to it. That is, mercury is arguably uniquely toxic compared with the other pollutants regulated by a cap-and-trade system, which could in theory leave particular sources emitting unacceptably high levels. But in reality mercury emissions from clean American power plants are only a tiny fraction of the global total, which is why this is the first time any Administration has thought to regulate mercury, in any fashion. The main source of mercury toxicity in America is fish, often originating overseas, not in smokestacks in the Tennessee Valley. And there was no similar environmentalist outcry when previous Administrations (see Clinton) did nothing about the problem. Hyperbole like that from Messrs. Walke and Becker explains why the traditional environmental community has discredited itself in recent years, and why it was irrelevant during the last election. So the Bush Administration might as well go ahead and get honest and consistent about its clean air policy by dropping the NSR lawsuits. Are there any worse things left for these people to say about it?