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 : Moderate Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Suma who wrote (15898)	3/17/2005 12:20:29 PM
From: jttmab	Respond to of 20773

What I find continually interesting if you will read Westera's posts to me is that everything he accuses me of being he is... I could turn everyone of his posts around and send his replies to me back to him. There's no hint that he is aware of it. One wonders. In political speech it is in vogue to exaggerate to the extreme if you expect anyone to even notice. To say, the US is pretty good, it has it's shining moments and it's warts...is boring and catches no interest. Most of the time, Ramsey Clark sounds pretty reasonable and then he just goes off into some tangeant that's hard to understand what in the hell he's talking about. America is the worse example of Democracy in the world. How can we [export] it when we don't exemplify it. We are one of the very few democracies that didn't include the right of the people to vote in our Constitution. Seems an odd ommission for a democracy. I think in large groupings. There are ~20 or so democracies that are all pretty good places to live. Each one has it's merits; each one has it's warts. In any event, you probably can't "export" a democracy to begin with. It has to come from within the country itself. And even then it's hard. Witness the voluntary democracy of Russia. I traveled to over 110 Counties and whereas once Americans were respected and liked now there is nothing but disdain for us. I haven't travelled that much, but between the lesser travel and what I read that seems pretty close. We spent( a figure here like 90 BILLION) on the election in Iraq and it was to elect our choices.. We put up the candidates.. I think we spent a lot of money in Iraq for Iraqis to vote on their ethnic identity. The Kurds voted for Kurds; the Shia voted for Shia; and the Sunni [those that did vote] voted for Sunni. I never saw any "positions". They voted their ethnic identity. We are in the midst of the worse financial crisis that we have ever been in. I don't really see how we can work out way out of this deficit. I'd say we are on the verge of the worse financial crisis that we've ever seen. On an instantaneous basis, the economy is ok. People are churning money in the economy, sometimes it's even their own money. What they are unaware of is the wealth that is flowing out of the country and the commitment of future wealth to flow out of the country. Our increasingly "service economy" will become more fragile to normal economic cycles and less internal strengths to recover from them. jttmab

To: Suma who wrote (15898)	3/17/2005 3:20:24 PM
From: Dale Baker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20773

Clark is just as biased on the left as the rightwing Bush voices we hear. I have to clarify his point about "nothing but disdain" - I have been in a few dozen countries myself, including recent stops in Africa, Europe and the Indian Ocean. I have NEVER had a problem because I am American - most non-Americans have real contempt for current US government foreign policies and a hurt mystification at the vicious, bigoted foreigner bashing they hear in the American media. But deep down, Americans as a people are still respected in most countries. We just need to start building ties with other cultures instead of bashing them and tearing them down in the name of a grand unilateralist crusade. JMHO.

To: Suma who wrote (15898)	3/17/2005 7:04:18 PM
From: Raymond Duray	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20773

Suma, Re: What do you all think about Ramsey Clark ? Opinions of what he said ? I like Ramsey Clark, though I do find him often ridiculous. For example, he's decided to be part of Saddam Hussein's defense team. What possible good this might do for Clark's credibility is beyond me. It seems rather masochistic, actually. Clark would be a lot more effective advocate for his mostly reasonable and democratic positions if he'd simply take a bit more media-savvy approach to things. In that sense, Chomsky, Gore Vidal and Howard Zinn seem much better spokesmen for the Left, as does Amy Goodman with her level-headed and credible Democracy NOW! program. Here's a recent Clark interview on Democracy NOW!: democracynow.org *** Now, as for Charlie Rose, I've lost most of my respect for the man as the list of sponsors continues to grow at the beginning of his program. Rose is merely a mouthpiece for the Establishment. His bias in favor of the illegal and immoral attack on Iraq was, quite simply, reprehensible. Rose holds himself out to be better than the rabble at Faux News or Entertainment Tonight. However, he's just as phony in his own way as the other entertainers are. I really feel badly that Rose appears to have no soul. He's just a whore for "da Man".

To: Suma who wrote (15898)	3/19/2005 11:38:58 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 20773

"What I find continually interesting if you will read Westera's posts to me is that everything he accuses me of being he is... I could turn everyone of his posts around and send his replies to me back to him." So why don't you try? OK, admittedly you have, but you seem to get tripped up when it comes to being able to do so factually & accurately. Point in fact. You said, "It's just that he believes that he uses unbiased sources." When have I ever claimed that? In fact haven't. What I actually do is to admit that many of my sources are biased. I have repeatedly admitted I am biased too. I openly acknowledge my bias & constantly keep it in mind when researching & assimilating info. And as I have told you repeatedly, you confuse bias with reality & accuracy. To you any hint of conservative bias automatically means they are disreputable, inaccurate & not reality based. And you are wrong on all counts, particularly when it relates to my sources. I stress using sources that are reality based & accurate all the time. Funny you didn't mention that. I repeatedly show you how many of your sources are not only biased, they are not reality based & inaccurate. And I do it with real facts from credible sources. Yet you are convinced that I am "everything he accuses me of being he is" Not in the real world Suma. Not even close.

To: Suma who wrote (15898)	3/19/2005 11:51:09 AM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20773

"I just keep saying, we all have to consider the source(s) and look beyond our bias." You "say" that, but what you really mean is your biased sources are somehow superior (they say what you want to hear), therefore they are more credible than my biased sources. However, what actually happens between us is that I provide you with factually accurate information that discredits the disinformation your sources present as fact. And my sources are consistently credible & independently verifiable. Your sources have serious problems with facts & reality (IE Michael Moore, Al Franken, The Nation, MoveOn.org, Truthout.org, commondreams.com, opensecrets.org, The Daily Misleader, NPR, Molly Ivins, Imus, Friedman, BBC News, the lndependent/UK, NYT, LA Times, CBS, ET AL). You seem to miss that critical aspect all the time Suma. Why is that?