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 (340327)	6/14/2007 11:48:22 AM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573502

It has everything to do with democracy No, just about nothing. Democracy means the people decide. It the people or their elected representatives decide to treat someone unfairly that isn't undemocratic. It may be unfair, unjust, wrong, or abusive of freedom, but those are separate issues from democracy. In this case there is some indication that their might be some reason to keep him out. However the publically released information doesn't seem solid enough to support doing so. If any secret information is no more solid then he should be let in. OTOH the abuse, if there is any at all, is much less because of the fact that he is a foreign national. An argument can be made that he should be let in, but forbidding a foreign national to enter the US, is hardly undemocratic, or some form of general repression. Its a stretch to say that they insisted everything was fine, and a much bigger stretch to say that I agreed with such a statement. My point where and are more along the lines that Iraq can be won, not that everything is going fine. At the point I am discussing, it was not an issue of whether the war could be won or not. It was that the war was going badly and getting worse. You argued that that was nonsense. I argued that the idea that the war was lost was nonsense. I argued against the idea that things where totally falling apart. At times I argued against the idea that things where getting worse, but I didn't call either of those ideas nonsense, and I certainly didn't, as you claim I did, say "everything is fine". Corporate America is not a monolithic block. To the extent corporate owned media has some vested interest, its in making higher profits, by attratcing my viewers/readers, not in supporting any one political party or administration. The politics of the top people influence the politics of the corporation. Look no further that Rupert Murdoch. Rupert Murdoch is one man, whose politics appear to influence his news media outlets more than most owners. Other owners have different politics, so even if they do have a strong influence, it isn't always in a conservative direction. Many owners are known to contribute to liberal causes. Then why did I have to go to the British press to get the truth? Correction, you had to go to the British press to see what you think is the truth. Actually not even that because you didn't have to. You just happened to see it there first. In any case to the extent that foreign media report on the US, and the reports are available in the US, they serve to contribute to the openness, and diversity of viewpoint that I'm talking about.