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.

Strategies & Market Trends : World Outlook -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Les H who wrote (5883)	2/15/2006 1:33:05 AM
From: mishedlo	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 48711

From Pituophis on the FOOL I've been pressing a deadline and haven't even had time to read the boards lately so when I got on today I was 213 posts behind. No time to catch up now, but just wanted to comment on the Cheney shooting thingy. Btw, that happened about 10 miles from my house and Whittington was taken to a hospital about 3 miles from my house. Saturday afternoon before the shooting had been reported on the news we saw all kinds of planes and helicopters flying around - I even commented to my wife that the terrorist must be attacking, but I guess they were just up there protecting our VP. But who's gonna protect us from him, huh? One of the first things that really bothered me about the shooting incident was that a lot of the commentators were using the word "peppered" to describe what happened to Whittington. ABC News had it scrolling across the bottom of the screen Monday morning..."Cheney 'peppers' hunting buddy..." As someone who grew up bird hunting and who hunted most of my life (though I don't anymore), I have often used the word "peppered" and have in fact been "peppered" on many occassions. Being peppered is being hit by bird shot from a long distance. It might sting a little, but rarely penetrates the skin. Whittington WAS NOT "peppered." Whittington was SHOT in the face and chest by Cheney at close range. To get that kind of penetration with #8 bird shot, I'd say he would have to have been closer than 20 feet. So Cheney aimed his shotgun at a guys face 20 feet away and pulled the trigger. Can't get much more careless than that. In all my decades as a hunter, I never witnessed an accident with a shotgun as serious as that. The speculation is that Cheney was almost certainly drunk - he is well known to like a snort now and then while blasting quail. That explains why they avoided law enforcemnt for 24 hours - all the local LE had to go on was their word that they weren't drinking...and we all know how much Cheney's WORD is worth...oh, and they didn't even have the proper license to quail hunt in Texas anyway, but the game warden let them off with a warning. Then this afternoon I hear that the Whitehouse has decided to deal with the incident with "HUMOR". And to make it even funnier, at the same time that they're cracking jokes Whittington is having a heart attack because one of those bird shot that "peppered" him got a little close to his heart. You can't get much funnier than that, huh? Well, not unless he dies, that would really be scream. I bet Whittington's friends and family are really getting a good laugh. Can you say negligent homicide?

To: Les H who wrote (5883)	2/15/2006 1:47:38 AM
From: mishedlo	Respond to of 48711

UN report calls for closure of Guantánamo · Prison breaks conventions on torture, say envoys · Violent force-feeding of hunger strikers criticised The effort to break the hunger strike has accelerated since the UN envoys produced their draft, with inmates strapped in restraint chairs for hours and fed laxatives so that they defecate on themselves. "The government is not doing things to keep them alive. It is really conducting tactics to deprive them of the ability to be on hunger strike because the hunger strike is an embarrassment to them," said Thomas Wilner, an attorney at the Washington firm Shearman & Sterlin, who represents several Kuwaiti detainees. guardian.co.uk

To: Les H who wrote (5883)	2/15/2006 11:02:48 AM
From: mishedlo	Respond to of 48711

Fighting the long war beyond the $513bn annual price tag for US taxpayers, there are questionable assumptions and dangers in this review. America's enemies may be ruthless, but are they really trying to destroy its way of life? Are Osama bin Laden and co. truly on the same level as Hitler or Stalin? Elevating terrorism to the level of an ideology risks exaggerating the importance of a modus operandi - though the fear of an al-Qaida-type nuclear, chemical or biological attack cannot be avoided - and underplaying the need to tackle motivation. Above all is the danger that the concept of endless war will be self-perpetuating, a permanent recruiting sergeant for the jihadist cause. Root causes, it goes without saying, matter more than their symptoms, however menacing. Mr Rumsfeld's bleak view of the future begs the question of whether even the longest war against terrorism is winnable in any real sense - and whether our world can really look forward to the day when this 21st century "ism" becomes just another "wasm". guardian.co.uk