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: Tenchusatsu who wrote (731374)

8/6/2013 10:13:00 PM

From: SilentZ

Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 1575614

>Z, I've said over and over again that we should withhold aid to Egypt and take a neutral stance in the conflict, then consider resuming aid if and when the new Egyptian government takes hold. How many times do I have to repeat it for you?

Fine. I just don't see that doing any good.

>That would be an additional 15,000 teachers that we could hire with that money. And that would be something that Obama would LOVE to take credit for.

There are hundreds of other ways to come up with $3 billion that would not involve risking the dissolution of the Camp David Accords.

Having said that, I wouldn't shed a tear. I'm just not sure it'd be smart. And once again, I'm pretty sure it wouldn't work. And yes, normally I'd want another solution, but I'm fine with just taking a "wait and see" approach until that solution presents itself. What's going on in Egypt is far from ideal, but there are so many other things that would take precedence for me.

>You see why it matters and why you look rather shallow pretending that it doesn't? Any way you slice it, that's a significant amount of money that is going into the mess in Egypt.

You see why you looks rather shallow pretending that you care that we have money for teachers when you tend not to care about that otherwise? It's just like that silly White House tours thing.

>Something that significant needs to have a good reason.

It does. Avoiding knocking over a house of cards that it took a decade to build is a good enough reason for me.

>Pretending that Egypt didn't just undergo a coup d'etat is not a good reason. (That seems to be yet another point I have to repeat for you.)

I've never seen you make it before. I'm well aware that we're playing semantics games to avoid having to take a step that might be pretty hazardous.

-Z