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: Dayuhan who wrote (17087)	4/18/2000 3:34:00 AM
From: greenspirit	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

Steven, your assumption may or may not be true. But it seems illogical to me if you believe that way, to not vote at all and allow the same liberal Democrats to get elected over and over. Makes more sense to test your hypothesis for four years and see whether it is valid. If the conservatives were elected with a majority for once in my lifetime and controlled both the House/Senate and Presidency. Them performed as you assume. I might just join you as a cynical non voting electorate. Until the assumption has been tested, it remains only a theory. The liberal Democrats who have controlled both the house and the senate for the better part of 40 years. And who also controlled the Presidency during many of those years, have proven beyond a reasonable doubt they will look for ways to control our lives at every opportunity. Why not take a chance and give another philosophy 4 years to prove your theory wrong? Seems to me if you looked at it on a risk Contingency basis, it makes much more sense to elect conservatives for four years, than to go with the status quo. After conversing with you for as long as I have. Seems to me the only thing which might happen that you dislike is local school boards will post the ten commandments and the Congress will pass a flag burning ammendment. Are those items really so awful with regard to control and power, when balanced against a party that desires to control 16% of the economy and partition out health care as a complete socialistic model? The desire of liberal Democrats to expand the breath and scope of government involvement in our daily lives is truly profound. To compare the two equally is to have ignored literally hundreds of legislative proposals which have been vetoed time or voted down by Democrats time and time again. Term limits being on the top of the pile. Do you think liberal Democrats would have EVER proposed term limits? Effectively ending their reign of power. Of course not. Just like they never would propose privatizing the school system, social security, or passing a balanced budget ammendment. Heck, if the news media would wasn't so biased, we might see the old footage of liberal Democrats like Kennedy talking about how balancing the budget within ten years would leave starving children on the streets. The first thing conservatives did when they were elected in the house was pass a law which made them accountable to the same laws they pass on the American people. Is there any more telling issue which describes the paradigm liberal Democrats operated under for 35 years to have actually opposed such a measure? Michael