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 : Clinton's Scandals: Is this corruption the worst ever? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DJRoss who wrote (3343)	8/27/1998 3:30:00 PM
From: RJC2006	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13994

<<< George Washingtons Potomac crossing was not an event that testifies to the poverty of the colonists.>>> Exactly. You're catching on. They had more to lose then the Sudanese do by expelling terrorists out of their country or for ceasing in the manufacturing of terrorist components. Ever wonder why they haven't? Many of the founding fathers had very little money. Some did and some didn't. Samuel Adams was flat broke during the Revolution. He wasn't some "fat cat" that hung out from a distance and didn't put his rear end on the line. Practically every one of the colony leaders was branded a traitor and many went into hiding placing whatever fortune or circumstance they had in jeopardy. Paul Revere was a silversmith, not exactly a rich "fat cat". What I find objectionable is this idea that the colonists that were a bunch of "fat cats" that just sat back and let someone else do the fighting. Benjamin Franklin was a bit too old for military service at the time and yet he had no qualms about making trips to France to enlist support. Not exactly the picture of someone sitting in his rocker and letting someone else do the work. <<<Your rhetoric concerning the families of the deceased in Kenya and Tanzania have nothing to do with my question. I wanted to know what your experiences in such countries were if any. If you do not have any, just say so. From your statement, I am lead to believe that this is the case. It is not uncommon for people who have no such experiences to maintain similiar views as yours regardless of what country they are from. As far as those that were killed in the embassy bombings, their attackers were not locals, so the feelings of the families of these victims towards the local population need not be inflamatory, as the local peoples they worked with also suffered. This is witnessed by those of us who saw they rescue and salvage efforts of the local fire departments and military.>>> No, it cuts directly to the heart of the matter and you're attempting as best you can to distance your stance away from that central fact--that Americans died in a hideous bombing perpetrated by cowardly terrorists backed by countries such as Sudan. By the way, I don't need to live in the Sahara Desert to know that it's hot or what that feels like. <<<As far as those that were killed in the embassy bombings, their attackers were not locals, so the feelings of the families of these victims towards the local population need not be inflamatory, as the local peoples they worked with also suffered.>>> The families aren't hostile toward the locals of Kenya and Tanzania. However, I suspect that they aren't too inclined to take any Peace Corp missions to Sudan. <<<Try and convince the people who are now able to feed their children,clothe them,imunize them from disease, and even send them to newly built schools that these Crooks are scum and should be eliminated. I can support such crooks, but I will not condemn a person for applying for a job teaching children at a school that was built with drug money.>>> Too bad. I can. <<<Since I am well off compared to the rest of the world, I do not have to partake of such things, I have the option as you do to walk away and not support such activities. >>> Hmm, do you have a swivel chair? <<<Problem is, in a way we do support drugs.>> Wonderful. And now for the logic.... <<<We let the small timers go, because we think we are going to get the big fish. So if we find a methlab, we let it work sometimes months before we strike, because we want the guy at the top. Meanwhile how much of this junk is produced and marketed and sold while we wait, and when we bust the top guy, how long is it before another one takes his place. We even make deals with dealers to get to their suppliers. Ok dealer walks, his supplier goes to jail, dealer finds another supplier. Why not put the dealer in jail no deal.>>> Have you ever worked in law enforcement? I haven't but I work closely with them. Small time dealers go to jail all the time. Many of them lead the police to big suppliers and many times they ALL go to jail including the small timer. <<<Start selling flour all over the city and disrupt the whole drug market. People start to get suspiscious. Don't know who has the real stuff, and wham, they start keeping their money. Lower the quality so badly that even a stone hard junky kicks it to the curb.>> Wrong. Have you ever worked with drug addicted people? They can smell crap from a mile away. It's a nice fantasy but it would more likely get someone shot then anything else. <<<So we run the Escobars out of the US so they can be dealt with by Columbian officials, and then the Columbians can go ahead and bomb Los Angeles east because the Escobars still have a going concern of drug production going on there.>> Why don't you try sticking with reality for a change rather than a silly series of "what if's" that make no sense whatsoever. Yeah, if we had our hands on Pablo Escobar we'd just pat him on the head and away he goes. I don't think so. <<<We say we oppose racism, but what are we doing about it?>>> Gee, is anyone surprised at this? I wondered when this "card" would be played. <<We say we oppose drugs, but what are we doing about it?(imagine answering that question if allegations that President Clinton uses or used cocained prove to be true),>>> Uh 'scuse me but this isn't Sweden. I don't know what they do there but here in America, Congress makes the laws not the President. If he is doing cocaine and gets caught the laws as passed by the Congress will amply punish him and are not diminished in the least. So his breaking that law has nothing to do with our government's support against drugs. <<<we say that we oppose terrorism, but what are we really doing about it within our own borders. >>> Well, we have a whole contigent of left-wing whackos that would be willing to throw anyone in jail for owning anything stronger than a water pistol. For some that's a start. Let me qualify this, In the last 20 years,I can't recall one terrorist, whether foreign or domestic, that has been tried in a courtroom in the United States and set free. Can you name one? OJ doesn't count. You'll notice I said the last 20 years. I didn't want to bring the Chicago Seven in to the discussion. <<<How many radical Muslim fundamentalist live in the US? Of these, how many support terrorist actions against the US?>>> I don't know. How many radical Muslim fundamentalist live in the US and support terrorist actions against the US? <<<Why are they not rooted out and killed?>>> Sounds good to me. <<<Of course one could argue that we are working on it, but the country that decides to do the job quickly for us thinks that we are too slow or are supporting them, even after they have told us to do something about it.>>> Yes and your point? By the way, you live in Sweden. Are you an American?