Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices Message Board

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

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: TimF who wrote (134410)	3/11/2001 7:57:11 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) of 1576576

Tim, No desire to keep what your own wealth is not greed. Yes, it is when its at the expense of the civilization of which you have chosen to be a part. Our civlization is not in danger from this tax cut in fact in some ways it will benefit. Even if there is a net loss (and IMO there is not) you are not taking from others when you get a tax cut you are stopping them from taking from you. Or for that matter you can even give it to charity or invest in and create new jobs, either of which might help society more then the federal government spending it. Like Dave said earlier, we are talking semantics...less taxes collected means a smaller revenue stream. A smaller revenue stream means less $$$ to reduce the deficit or for existing programs. A cutback in programs usually results in a reduction in services and hurts, not endangers, the quality of life. Military spending has been slashed all ready while other areas of government grew enormously. I am a supporter of only modest increases in military spending. Just two weeks you posted something that identified some of the waste in the military and you still want a modest increase? What's different are their gun control laws...they are much more restrictive. There gun control laws reduce the number of murders with knives, clubs, and poison? What's your point? Because there are several ways to kill people, we need to pick the one that does it faster and easier? So lift those restrictions on guns? Let's restrict the use of the guns and then figure out how to keep people from killing each other in other ways. Tell that to the parents who just lost their kids to guns. The greater the number of guns in our society, the greater the chance of being shot.....just standard mathematical probabilities. Its not as simple as addition. Probabilities have nothing to do with addition. Most guns never are used to shoot anyone. But when they do, they usually maim or kill. Running a red light doesn't always result in an accident but when it does they tend to be deadly. That's why its against the law to run a red light. Most gun owners never shoot anyone. What's your point? If someone tries to shoot me and I have a gun my chances to get shot go down. This can also apply to other people that are with me. It matters who has the gun. Guns in the right hands can make things safer. Not necessarily...guns can't tell the good guys from the bad guys...they just shoot to kill. Social spending exploded under Reagan. Tell that to the homeless. Thats why we has such large deficits. We have large deficits because of the military spending under Reagan, and not the social spending. While I would be against any such ammendment, controling guns after the reapeal or modification of the 2nd ammendment would at least respect the rule of law. I think it may take that to gun laws put into place. ted

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next