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 : Al Gore vs George Bush: the moderate's perspective -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Arthur Radley who wrote (171)	9/4/2000 4:36:35 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Respond to of 10042

Listen, unlike you and you Al Bore Jr. I don't believe in the concept of "Big Oil". What I'm concerned with is the SHEER HYPOCRISY by Gore in claiming that Bush represents "big oil" Anyone who was invested in oil stocks from the early 90s until now can see that they were outpaced by the Dow Jones, S&P, and Nasdaq. That hardly qualifies as "big", certainly not in comparison to MSFT, CSCO, IBM, or GM. siliconinvestor.com bigcharts.com. Hell, I would have voted to permit oil exploration off the California coast as well... and on the north slope of Alaska. Right along with regulations for all new tankers to be double hulled, and to ensure that all possible major environmental risks associated with such shipping and drilling operations. In addition, I would be encouraging the exploration of alternative fuel and additional refining capacity. And the BIGGEST REASON I WOULD BE ADVOCATING THIS is that oil dependency is a national security risk. Oil dependency is also RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ONE OF THE LARGEST PORTIONS of the trade deficit. And until we have such oil independence, we're vulnerable to any petty dictator who chooses to attack our interests in the Persian Gulf. If that is being for "big oil" then call me guilty....