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 (241208)	7/12/2005 6:11:55 PM
From: d[-_-]b	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574767

tejek, re: I think hybrids are an excellent alternative. They simply allow more folks to drive on the same oil production levels - which is good because China and India will really add to demand. Doesn't really do much to relieve foreign dependance on oil. Also, the Arabs keep their cash cow going. Bush nor John Scary can create a new market - they can however piss a bunch of our tax dollars into a useless effort to "find" alternatives - when anyone with an ounce of sense knows we're not willing to pay more for the alternative. We don't need no stinking tax incentives for hybrids - they are always on back order already. The market will decide if Hybrids are a good thing. I'd like to have one, but the high cost and modest savings don't look compelling to me - yet. I'm also a bit concerned about the batteries, disposal, accidents, useful life, replacement costs etc. re: Bush's answer is an unimaginative business as usual with oil being the mainstay while denying that US oil consumption is seriously adding to the world's pollution problems. So your great plan is to tax everyone into an alternative while this government is out sourcing our jobs to China you want to drive the costs to do business even higher, speeding the out sourcing along at yet a faster pace. Brilliant.

To: tejek who wrote (241208)	7/12/2005 6:13:29 PM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574767

One Rove defense flies out the window. The inadvertent disclosure of the name of a business affiliated with the CIA underscores the potential damage to the agency and its operatives caused by the leak of Plame's identity. Intelligence officials have said that once Plame's job as an undercover operative was revealed, other agency secrets could be unraveled and her sources might be compromised or endangered. A former diplomat who spoke on condition of anonymity said yesterday that every foreign intelligence service would run Plame's name through its databases within hours of its publication to determine if she had visited their country and to reconstruct her activities. "That's why the agency is so sensitive about just publishing her name," the former diplomat said. FEC rules require donors to list their employment. Plame used her married name, Valerie E. Wilson, and listed her employment as an "analyst" with Brewster-Jennings & Associates. The document establishes that Plame has worked undercover within the past five years. The time frame is one of the standards used in making determinations about whether a disclosure is a criminal violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. washingtonpost.com