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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (807)	7/10/1999 1:54:00 PM
From: jlallen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Bob Smith is hardly an extremist. He is a man of principle. Not that the facts matter to a mushy headed liberal even assuming you could understand facts in the first place. JLA

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (807)	7/10/1999 2:30:00 PM
From: truedog	Respond to of 769670

to: Michelle Harris from: truedog He would be the only one to agree with you but, by his own admission, he is a bit confused as to where he stands. TD

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (807)	7/10/1999 8:43:00 PM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

Michelle, Whoa! Wait a minute. I haven't admitted whether I'm a liberal or conservative; though some seem to be certain... I agree completely that removal of the "marriage tax penalty" is pretty darn close to social engineering. I also agree that conservatives are [generalization] opposed to social engineering. No government intrusion...I am very curious how the self-announced conservatives are going to respond...the way I've portrayed it they might be confused...Republican proposed it so it must be conservative...but illustrated in a manner that illustrates social engineering...I'm sure they wonder if it's "liberal". So confusing...<g> If social engineering is characteristic of liberals and you and I are opposed to social engineering....maybe you and I are the true conservatives. A little more seriously, far too many issues [on both sides of the aisle] and their "solutions" are spun to, IMO, to distorted ends. I think the illustration I've offered points to the application or affect of the proposal. The phrase Marriage tax penalty has only the "sound" of bad. Who could be opposed to removing a "penalty"; penalties are bad? Over the years, I've become more adept at ignoring the rhetoric and looking at the principle. At least I think I have. I read the referenced URL. Thank you. IMO, the Republican party (separate from conservatives) has been so insistent on common beliefs and positions the rigidity results in this type of splintering. The Democratic Party [separate from liberals] has the problem being so tolerant [there must be a better word than tolerant, but I can't conjure it up] of differing views that it borders on chaos. Best Regards, Jim