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: TigerPaw who wrote (21147)	6/22/2000 11:10:00 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769667

Well, I don't think that some people feeling complacent qualifies as aristocracy. Nor does a failure to provide assistance for the disadvantaged at the level you think appropriate. It is certainly a tangle of public policy questions, like the moral hazard of dependency vs. the chaotic nature of home life among many of the poor..... I am sorry I missed the local case. I do not think that trying to return to the customs that prevailed until recently, or date back to the 50s, about Church- State matters amounts to trying to establish theocracy. Some I approve of, some I disapprove of, but there are no denominations seeking utter confessional conformity, nor is there a widespread movement to electer ministers or priest to office..... The last is merely alarmist.......

To: TigerPaw who wrote (21147)	6/22/2000 11:16:00 AM
From: Gordon A. Langston	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

Aristrocracy? There are lots of folks in Texas who ascribe to a "Survival of the fittest" philosophy, part of which indicates that they achieved their position because of good breeding. The basic assumption seems to be that disadvantaged people had inferior parents and will have inferior children and there is no use doing more than placate them and keep them under control. Wow, you have re-defined "aristocracy" to mean "rugged individualism" and then blamed either them, conservatives, or Texans (clarify please) for instituting welfare. That's some twisting. So Camelot and the Great Society were myths.