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: tejek who wrote (229309)	4/15/2005 8:05:07 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573220

Re: people in this country being increasing alienated from the government. The left is probably increasingly alienated. The Republicans often felt alienated by Clinton. In general things have become more partisan for the last several decades so who ever isn't in power is likely to feel more alienated than they where in the past. there has been enough evidence cited repeatedly that acts were committed in Guat. and Afghanistan that violate the Conventions And there where American acts against the conventions in Vietnam, Korea, World War I, and just about every war since the conventions where signed. As for the current Iraq/Afghanistan/Cuba situation for sure you have at some severe problems, some might argue that there has been a breakdown in dicipline and wide spread abuses (for which Rumsfeld would have some responsibility) but that would be a failure (even if it is potentially a severe one) rather than a mater of policy. But saying things are beyond that to where obvious torture is expressly ordered or condoned is a leap. The leap could turn out to be true but at this point it isn't supported. So dude, you need to get use to those comparisons of Bush to Hitler. Its very likely they will continue. Yes its likely that many on the left will continue to be over the top and ridiculous. You want to play semantics when there are more important things to discuss. You apparently don't know what playing semantics means. Neither saying "there is nothing wrong with withdrawing from a treaty that includes a provision for withdrawal", nor talking about how withdrawing from a treaty that has no provision for withdraw is going against your agreement and going back on your word and is not equivalent to the 1st situation, is a semantic argument. It is not an argument based on the words used, but based on ideas, other words would work just as well I am not tying things to the words. It is a substantive argument not a semantic one. You are of course free to disagree with the substance of the argument. Tim