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 : New FADG. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (342)	5/16/2007 4:27:43 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4152

Nice start. You've got my attention.

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (342)	5/17/2007 2:49:59 AM
From: KLP	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 4152

kumar...where's that Recommend button when it's needed. Hawk, great post! Why do you think this is so? Ask yourself why you, as Americans, have not been informed of its content via this administraion

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (342)	5/17/2007 9:19:48 AM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4152

Apparently, I didn't completely convince Michael the question I asked was really the question I asked. First off.. This administration has done a Pss Poor job of explaining the stakes we're facing, so I'd announce a series of public service programs that explain why the Jihadist threat is long-term, dangerous, and threat to global security. A "Why We Fight" style of information intent upon educating people like Michael. That's nice. You're obviously not doing it here. I think politicians usually find it best to keep it vague and let the imagination run wild. Laz was quoting the Sharia as an indication that we're all going to be forced to convert or die. You don't want to upset that image if you want his vote. Furthermore, as part of this series, I'd explain the overthrow of Saddam from the perspective of the continuing material violations of the cease-fire that directly threaten Americans as early as 1993. ... Other than a few weird places like SI. No one cares anymore. He's dead. Forget the WMD issue.. Saddam was waging a covert war against the US.* IMO, that would be a campaign mistake. In addition to Saddam being dead, it would be perceived as another attempt to come up with yet another reason to justify what the large majority of Americans already believe is a mistake. I fail to see how something we didn't know justifies what we did. From my own perspective, I would give it a big shrug anyway. We were waging a covert war and economic war against Iraq. The US is using Ethiopia as a proxy in Somalia. The US won't admit it which makes it covert war of sorts. I have a feeling that you wouldn't agree that gives Somalia the moral right to wage a war against the US. Ask yourself why you, as Americans, have not been informed of its content via this administraion. I would provide the resources necessary to fully translate, and reveal the corruption of Saddam's regime and use any "inconvenient" discoveries as leverage with Saddam's former allies in order to "sway" them to our point of view. A conspiracy maybe? Were you thinking about one of those "incovenient" discoveries: like US companies were responsible for more than 50% of all the illegal kickbacks to Saddam, or are you going to keep quiet about that one. I'd heavily subsidize a VIABLE alternative energy research program. I'm not particularly enthused about Ethanol, since it requires a completely separate distribution pipeline, but the farm vote sure does love it, so I'd have to consider it. Good thinking. That keeps ADM supporting your election campaign. And you can tell Exxon, you're just "thinking" about ethonol. That keeps them pumping donations to your campaign also. You've caught on to this How to get elected game quick. [Wink. Wink] This will tick off a lot of energy companies, but my response would be that "you are an energy company.. why does your only source of supply have to come from fossil fuels?" Not to mention ticking off Ted Stevens. Ted Stevens, he was the dude that was going to shut down the budget process until he got his $250M for his bridge. In addition to this, I would sign executive orders that facilitate the rebuilding of America's nuclear energy infrastructure, preferably based upon "pebble-bed" reactors. That's nice. Don't actually tell anyone what the contents of those EOs might be. I suspect you're going to run into a great big brick wall with existing regulations and laws. I would inform the Arab world, over and over again if need be until they "get it", that the US has no interest in waging a religious crusade against Islam. ... Sure. First thing the Arab leaders are going to tell you is that there is no solution to the extremist problem until the Palestinian/Israeli problem is solved. They're also going to keep on telling you that until you get it and do something about it. Metaphor. If I keep telling you that I like you and follow it up by poking you in the eye with a dirty stick, how many times do I a tell you I like you before you get it? Tell me how important democracy is when Hamas gets elected. Tell me how important it is to have democracy in Pakistan. I would sit down with my Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Armed Services and Appropriations committees and tell them that our war-fighting strategy is in desperate need of change. I can hear the JCS thinking ... "Oh Gawd, another Rummy." Thus, our unconventional fighting force structure MUST BE increased to meet the operational tempo being forced upon it. And what happens during periods of relative peace when those soldiers are idle? They get cut, because it's too damn expensive. Your other choice is to keep the country in continual wars. Even with all the emphasis on Defense spending right now, modernization programs are getting cut and/or stretched out. jttmab

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (342)	5/17/2007 10:59:16 AM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4152

Mr. President, I have a simple question regarding the following item that appeared recently. Message 23537568 Why is it that Exxon prefers to drill/pump oil in places like Iraq or Nigeria at high personnel risk when they've had a lease to develop a major oil and gas field in Alaska for some 40? years? Follow up question, Mr. President. If there's a major oil and gas field in Alaska that has been sitting there for 40 years, why was your predecessor [and his party] so intent on developing oil fields in ANWR? jttmab