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 : John McCain for President -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: PROLIFE who wrote (249)	2/17/2000 12:45:00 AM
From: chalu2	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 6579

I don't agree that money left in Washington will get eaten by pork barrel projects. There is a surplus that, believe it or not, may have better applications than tax cuts. Pork barrel projects, by the way, are not completely wasteful because they often create jobs, and get roads and bridges built. The problem with them is the unfair distribution of funds, and the argument that the money could be better spent elsewhere.

To: PROLIFE who wrote (249)	2/17/2000 1:21:00 AM
From: TH	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 6579

DFC, You wrote, " but I think what he was trying to say was that when a case gets to him as governor, it has already been through the justice system" I might have misunderstood the question. What I thought King was asking was, have you rethought your position regarding the death penalty in light of the recent decision in IL. The question was not what is the procedure that you follow now, but rather do we risk killing someone who does not deserve it. Bush was basically saying, been there and done that, those dudes ARE GUILTY because they ARE on death row. The system says they are guilty so they are. The question was is the system perfect and in this case it was implied that if the system was not perfect then the death penalty should be rethought. Irreversable decisions require either perfection or acceptance of error. Keyes had a good point here that it was needed as a deterrent (jury still out on that from what I have read, crack heads usually don't give much thought as to if they are going to get the death penalty if they off some dude for enough cash for the next rock). and this..."So at that point he may really believe they are guilty without a doubt. That's the law." Again, the law found 13 cases (it was either 12 or 13) in IL where the law was wrong. That was the whole point of the question. Hey George do you think we should keep killing people in light of the fact that the law was wrong 13 times too many in IL. George responded, NO the law says they are guilty. We are back to the statements that Shrubby just might be too bright. At least Keyes understood the question and took the idealist path again. He said we need the death penalty, but Keyes did not really explain how to insure you don't kill innocent people. McCain just said use the new tech (DNA) if it helps. I wish McCain had addressed this more. Anyway, I am making a big deal out of this one example because for me it was so telling. I would like to hear if any others here interpreted it this way. Maybe I am way out in left field here. As for left over money and pork. The realist in my says you are right. I would like to think that if McCain gets the nod and then the office that he would do his very best to prevent this from happening. I really think its a cornerstone of his platform. Shrubby's statements about the money belongs to the people etc, well I just don't buy it. I also think Bush's tax plan smells fishy. I would really like to see actual numbers printed for McCain and Bush. Has anyone seen a detailed budget from either one? I bet not! Last, I really don't understand your projection. Are you saying that Bush wins because he will get the Republican vote and that would be the lions share? Good debate on this thread. Looking forward to it being alive for the next 9 months. If it is not I won't have anyone to vote for. Good Luck Thurston