SI
SI
discoversearch

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.  For example, here is how to disable FireFox ad content blocking while on Silicon Investor.

   PastimesAMAT Off-Topic Forum


Previous 10 Next 10 
To: Jerome who wrote (768)5/14/2002 8:26:23 AM
From: michael97123
   of 786
 
Likud move mostly internal politics. Bibi wants to replace Sharon as the Likud candidate in the next election. Sharon has a chance to position himself in the middle now if he wishes or to court the right in order to get their nod.
Sharon and Netanyahu represent two quite different strains of conservative Israeli movement.
Sharon is a patriot and places Israels security above all other matters. Netanyaho and his group came to the fore in the sixties and seventies. They are the original believers in the theory of Greater Israel(more land) that has gotten Israel way too deep into the settlement mode.
So on one hand Sharon would trade most of the settlements for genuine peace with genuine security while the others want this less than pursuing an expansionist agenda.
The good news is that if you add the sharon right, to the sheransky Russian movement and combine that with Labor you wind up with 2/3 of the vote. The trick is not to letter a PM election wind up as a contest between Netanyahoo and some Labor peacenik. Perhaps sharon will wind up heading the labor ticket. If the vote were held today Sharon would beat anyone, assuming he is on the ballot of course as either representatvie of likud, independent, or Labor. mike
PS Why would Bush lie about castro? What is the goal of such a lie? I heard Larry Eagleburger on Crossfire call for relations with cuba but said at the same time that the admin guy who brought the charges is a good guy and would say that without believing it. Maybe Jimmy Carter is the problem. Wait till Bill Clinton starts roaming the world as X Commander and chief. Carter and Clinton are so different in makeup but so much the same in ideology and hubris.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: michael97123 who wrote (769)5/14/2002 8:54:09 AM
From: Jerome
   of 786
 
>>>What is the goal of such a lie?<<< (about Cuba)...

The goal would be to see if there was any major support (outside of Miami) for getting rid of Fidel. Keep in mind that Canada and Mexico have normalized trading relationship with Cuba.

Bush's "axis of evil" balloon has to be pumped up periodically to keep it airborn.

Since Bush himself has not made the charge his hands are clean. And he is not rushing to support that statement.

Any attempt to get rid of Castro would help Bush in Florida where he won that landslide election.

Bush, (Governor of Florida) is also helped by that kind of talk. I believe that the Governor of Florida runs for re-election this fall.

Had there been normalized trade relations with Cuba for the past 30 years , Cuba would not be in the poor state that it is today, and Castro might not have survived.

JMO....Jerome

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: Jerome who wrote (770)5/14/2002 9:17:47 AM
From: michael97123
   of 786
 
Jerome,
Unfortunately castro will live forever. Its hard to believe that a baseball nut could be a tyrant. Dont forget the missiles Jerome. He almost plunged the world into nuclear war. It's personal with him just like it is with Bin Laden. Yes, its dangerous to carry a personal grudge this long but anyone who remembers the CMCrisis knows why. Having said all of that you might be right that it would have been better policy to have removed restictions on trade. But dont be fooled by that revolutionary mask. Castro is a murderous totalitarian tyrant and i will not be unhappy when he passes. And the Cubans who have come to this country and have become american patriots are to be admired even if our agenda shouldnt mirror theirs so closely. MIke

PS Do you disagree with my assessment of castro? Have you bought into that romantic revolutioary nonsense? When Castro dies, I would make Jeb Bush "el Presidente".

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: michael97123 who wrote (771)6/20/2002 8:55:59 PM
From: Jerome
   of 786
 
Mike../..threaders....Israel is busy building a wall to keep the terrorists out or to isolate themselves from the Palestineans.

The history of walls has not been favorable for those that built them.

China built a great wall that keep the outsiders out but it cost a lot in terms of lives.

Germany built a wall that ended poorly for the communists.

Many biblical cities built walls to protect their citizens and they all failed .

The Greeks built walls around important cities to no avail.

In your opinion...what happens politically in Israel if the wall gets completed and the terrorist attacks continue?

Is there any reason why Arafat could not be sent into exile?

Is Bush making a big mistake by holding off on the State for Palestine?

Has Bush got a Middle East Policy??? (besides Sadaam)

Will Bush get re-elected if the market stays in the tank.

Regards, Jerome

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


To: FiloF who started this subject7/7/2002 7:04:49 PM
From: Jerome
   of 786
 
Prediction....Bush's War on Iraq will go exactly nowhere.

Look at the facts....

1) Its been ten months since 9/11 and Bush's war on terrorism has gone no where.

2) His Cuban detainees will be tried neither in a Federal Court nor by a military tribunal. The case is just too weak.

3) If Bush does try try those detainees with a military tribunal, how much support can he expect from the Arab...Muslim countries against Iraq? Not much I say.

4) Thus far he is batting Zero against the thousands that Ashcroft has detained in this country since 9/11. If he gets tough will all the illegal Arabs in this country are the illegal Mexicans, Orientals, and South Americans going to stand up and cheer?

Bush's tough rhetoric after 9/11 was smelly flatulence to cover up his failed domestic initiatives. (corporate governance....energy policy....tax breaks for the wealthy)

So the Americans are going to rush off to war with Iraq, to absolve his father's failed military campaign? (where he snatched defeat from the jaws of victory?....Sadam is still in power)

In another 12 months the Presidential campaigns start anew. Bush has left himself politically vulnerable. The executive terrorists of those failed companies will slay Bush once and for all.... its the enemy within that will hurt Bush the most.

JMO...Jerome

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: Jerome who wrote (773)7/8/2002 12:07:14 AM
From: BWAC
   of 786
 
Prune the Shrub.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: BWAC who wrote (774)7/10/2002 4:24:26 PM
From: Jerome
   of 786
 
The Final Downgrade...Bush and Cheney Downgraded

salon.com
(Compliments of Raymond Duray of the DYN thread)

Lou Dobbs downgrades President Bush
And so do I.

Editor's note: This week, Salon is proud to present the debut of Joe Conason's daily Web journal. Salon's longtime political columnist will bring his gloves-off approach to the news -- and to the Bush administration -- every day, updating it as events demand. One day a week, it will be available exclusively to Salon Premium subscribers.

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Joe Conason

July 9, 2002 | I'm with Lou
If Lou Dobbs found the President's speech hollow and unimpressive, who am I to argue? The venerable CNN business anchor and commentator is a no-nonsense, flag-in-the-lapel kind of guy who doggedly defended Arthur Andersen against the "excesses" of the Justice Department. He's no left-winger. His instant reaction when Bush finished was that this represented yet another rhetorical exercise ("no capitalism without conscience") instead of a new reformist departure. He noted disapprovingly that the President had failed to mention the need to treat executive stock options as corporate expenses. I thought that amid all those sonorous fortune-cookie phrases ("no wealth without character") he offered a few decent proposals but I just don't find him credible on this topic. When George W. Bush talks about the importance of honest business practices and corporate integrity, it's like listening to Bill Clinton lecture about chastity. (Which Clinton would, thankfully, never do.)

"Can you ever give Bush the benefit of the doubt?" asked someone whose first impression of today's speech was better than mine (or Lou's). I suppose I could, except for one problem that gnaws. Until Bush resolves the questions about his role at Harken Energy and the subsequent SEC probe, he will have little moral authority to urge reform on corporate leaders -- or send any of them to prison. He was not exonerated by the SEC, but he might be able to exonerate himself by disclosing the case file. He didn't help himself by dodging that question yesterday.


Meanwhile his administration remains a haven for dubious corporate figures, from Army Secretary Thomas White to Vice President Dick Cheney, now under investigation himself by the SEC for his strange stewardship of Halliburton. Equally dim is the Bush record on "transparency," which in government means freedom of information and full disclosure of special interest influence. The attorney general issues new directives every month to shut off information from the public and the press. The vice president still resists the release of his Energy Task Force records, replete with visits from the minions of Enron and kindred companies. This is the opposite of transparency.
[Posted: 4:30 p.m. PST, July 9, 2002]

The President's ever-changing Harken story
What a time it is -- in this new dawn of "corporate responsibility" -- to be writing a daily journal online. My first deadline became easier to contemplate as I watched the president dodge his way through the Monday post-holiday White House press conference that punctuated his journey from the Kennebunkport golf course to Wall Street. George W. Bush, the ultimate American insider, has no desire to discuss the ways he made his millions. And his impatience with such impertinence is beginning to show.

Reading from an aggressive text prepared by Karl Rove, Bush tried to strike a tone of command within moments of stepping to the podium. Rather than badger him about ethical problems from his business career, he suggested, those Senate Democrats ought to get back to the nation's real business. They are playing politics, he suggested, while our troops languish without critical funding in a time of war. They should be passing his trade legislation, his energy bill, his pension protections and his defense appropriations, rather than asking questions about him.

But the ordinarily docile White House press corps, while chuckling appreciatively at the president's wisecracks, wasn't entirely buying that line. "This is recycled ... stuff," he said in response to the first question about his 1990 sale of Harken Energy stock, and the reporters laughed. The questions continued, however, and the answers weren't impressive.

George W. Bush has offered varying accounts over the past decade of his dealings as a Harken director. Back when he was running for Texas governor in 1994, he blamed the Securities and Exchange Commission for misplacing the disclosure forms he was supposed to file about his insider sale of 212,000 shares of Harken stock. At another point, he blamed the Harken lawyers, even though the filing wasn't their responsibility at all. Lately, his spokesman has tried to blame his own attorney (who now serves as the U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia). "I still haven't figured it out completely," Bush shrugged on Monday afternoon.

In other words, everybody was responsible for his failure to observe the securities laws except him. It sounded a bit tinny when he reminded those listening to his press conference that his very favorite theme is "a renewed sense of [personal] responsibility."

As we all know by now, Bush's corporate maneuvering has been "fully vetted." He expanded that line of defense when he claimed that the SEC examined all the aspects of his conduct at Harken "in a very thorough way." Exactly how thorough we may never know, since he declined to answer whether he would allow the SEC to release the entire file of its investigation into his controversial Harken trades. "This is old politics," he replied, complaining that the issue comes up every time he runs for office.

It keeps coming up, of course, because his story is so implausible. On Monday he tried to argue that he had actually lost a windfall by selling when he did, because 14 months later the stock had risen to twice the amount he realized from the June 1990 sale. That left out the most relevant financial history -- notably, that within two months after he sold his shares, Harken reported a devastating second-quarter loss of more than $20 million, and moreover that by December 1990 those same shares were trading at $1.25, or less than a third of the $4 price he had gotten when he got out.

Someone did have the temerity to inquire whether Bush had played any role in Harken's dubious "sale" of an entity called Aloha Petroleum (as in "aloha, suckers") to its own officers, a sham transaction that put lipstick on Harken to attract gullible investors. The president couldn't remember what he thought about the Aloha deal, saying he would have to consult the directors' minutes. Anyway, he added, that incident "and all matters relating to Harken were fully looked into by the SEC." And besides, the company had restated its phony earnings when ordered to by the SEC some time later. So what was the problem?

What the president didn't mention -- perhaps because nobody asked -- was that his father's appointees and his own personal attorney were running the SEC when he was investigated. The agency's chairman was an ardent loyalist named Richard Breeden, who had served as a top domestic policy aide to George Herbert Walker Bush. (He is now the court-appointed overseer of WorldCom.) Its general counsel was James Doty, the lawyer who had handled the sale of the Texas Rangers baseball team to Dubya's syndicate only two years earlier.

A few years ago, such obviously compromised presidential relationships would have provoked exclamations of outrage on the editorial pages of the nation's great newspapers, culminating in demands for a congressional investigation and even an independent counsel. Reporters would have camped out at the SEC to ambush the chairman with arms outstretched, harassing him to deliver those files about the president. The laughter in the press room and the newsrooms and the TV studios would have been anything but friendly, and the chatter would soon have turned to dark musings about the character of the man inhabiting the Oval Office. But that was when the president's name was Clinton, not Bush.
[Posted: 8:30 p.m. PST, July 8, 2002]

salon.com

- - - - - - - - - - - -

About the writer
Joe Conason writes a daily journal for Salon. He also writes a weekly column for the New York Observer.

Sound Off
Send us a Letter to the Editor



Salon.com >> News



Illustration by Zach Trenholm





Salon Politics: Unflinching daily political news, analysis and commentary.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


To: FiloF who started this subject7/21/2003 5:01:08 PM
From: Math Junkie
   of 786
 
This is a reply to a message that Brian Kerecz wrote on the No-Politics Thread:

Brian, you wrote, "Question regarding the new felony law which the RIAA is attempting to get passed. Isn't the way in which it is written Unconstitutional? It makes the distribution a felony because it assumes that once someone places a piece of material on the internet that at least 10 people will download a copy. This is only an assumption however; in reality, what if nobody downloads the material? The fact is, that these people do not care what the facts are- they are now making assumptions about what may or may not be being done over the internet. Isn't our justice system supposed to be based on FACTS and not assumptions? I think it is very dangerous for all of our liberties if these people(for lack of a better term) get their way.

Excerpt:
The Conyers-Berman bill would operate under the assumption that each copyrighted work made available through a computer network was copied by others at least 10 times for a total retail value of $2,500. That would bump the activity from a misdemeanor to a felony, carrying a sentence of up to five years in jail.
"

My answer is that if you check Article I of the U.S. Constitution, there doesn't seem to be anything preventing Congress from classifying violations of Federal laws as felonies or misdemeanors for any reason they see fit, including assumptions that you deem questionable. However I suppose there could be a potential due process issue, depending on what legal precedents exist.

Bear in mind here that the crime they are trying to address, IMO, is the offering of copyrighted material for download, irrespective of whether anyone actually downloads it. Estimating the number of people who download it seems to be entering into it only for the purpose of determining the seriousness of it.

Of course, the wisdom of what they are trying to do may be another matter entirely. I've always thought that the idea of depriving convicted felons of the right to vote was a completely wrong-headed idea, and the notion that this can be done over a mere $2,500 even more so.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: Math Junkie who wrote (776)7/21/2003 5:12:55 PM
From: Proud_Infidel
   of 786
 
Richard,

However I suppose there could be a potential due process issue, depending on what legal precedents exist.


You suppose there could be a due process issue from charging people with felonies based on assumptions?

What if after a murder, they rounded up all those who owned guns in the area and charged each gun owner because he or she was the possible murderer? I think it is quite clear to any sane individual that this is not what the founding fathers had in mind!

Brian

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: Proud_Infidel who wrote (777)7/21/2003 5:52:39 PM
From: Math Junkie
   of 786
 
Yes, I suppose. I don't know why you think it is so obvious. It's equally obvious to me that Congress has the constitutional authority to decide which crimes will be classed as felonies and which as misdemeanors. But since I am not a lawyer, I am willing to entertain the possibility that there could be some case law that I might not know about.

"What if after a murder, they rounded up all those who owned guns in the area and charged each gun owner because he or she was the possible murderer? I think it is quite clear to any sane individual that this is not what the founding fathers had in mind!"

Well, right now, there is no law to support doing that. The issue is whether Congress ought to pass this law, is it not? If it weren't for the second amendment, Congress would be completely within its rights to pass legislation outlawing gun ownership based on such reasoning. Unfortunately I know of no constitutional provision that requires acts of Congress to be well thought-out.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)
Previous 10 Next 10