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.

Technology Stocks : Intel Strategy for Achieving Wealth and Off Topic -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Gerald Walls who wrote (26349)	8/11/2000 6:28:18 PM
From: Sonny McWilliams	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 27012

Gerald. Yes, that's what you get when you are in a hurry. I def. have to watch my language with this dam stuff. But kidding aside. When I was talking about hydrogen I was of course only talking about getting hydro electric power from water that runs through those dams. Here I go again. gg. I should find a diff. word for this. I guess my use of the word hydrogen was a bit ridiculous. We would not want to have an accident like the Hindenburg. But I am sure everybody knew what I was talking about. But then again hydrogen would be a good source of energy if we could make it at a reasonable cost. One way would be splitting water by nuclear reaction. That's about as good as I can put it. But like I mentioned in an earlier post to Bill, this would not sit right with most everybody. I am talking about using nuclear energy here. The Navy uses it effectively. I'd better get off this energy producing stuff since I am def. not an expert on that. gg. BTW. I remember now that I heard this stuff about hydro electric dams on C-Span when they tuned in on an energy committee meeting in the Senate lately and one of the Republican Senators blasted our energy policy. I sent that message to Bill H. This Senator said that the biggest threat to our economy was this non existent energy policy. All the Governors in States like Montana, Idaho etc. want their dams left alone. Bush is for exploration in the Gulf of Mexico. Deep water drilling. What's wrong with that? It's supposed to be totally safe now and could get us off this dependency for foreign oil a bit. And there is always more Alaskan crude. But all this is opposed by this administration also. Hard to get off dependency when the administration is against everything. Same thing happened with the Welfare reform. After sending one bill after another to the President, the charm was the third time. Now of course it's THEIR welfare reform. And now Gore/Lieberman are already warning Bush/Cheney to get off more welfare cuts or whatever. I guess we still have too much unemployment. Or did I hear somewhere that there is a shortage of workers? Leave welfare to those who really cannot work. I just came on to check my portfolio and saw this message. So I decided to get into it a bit more thoroughly. I saw a Salmon hatchery dam on my last visit to Seattle but this of course was only for breeding and not for power. Let me know what I left out again. gg. Oh. There is talk now that Greenspan may cut interest rates later this winter. Larry Kudlov said he was for no interest rate hikes to begin with and I have been with him all along. He mentioned again today that we really needed no landing at all. The economy had been doing fine on its own. I believe the latter was Kudlov's statement. I listened to sev. commentaries on this subject today. Hm. Winter. That could move the techs. My socially incorrect stock purchase of MO about 2 months ago, when I sold WMT, did well the last cpl of days. I had bought it for the nice dividend and the hope deep down that the stock would move higher. Now how did I get on that subject? Oh yes. Winter and techs. gg. Sonny