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.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Strictly: Drilling and oil-field services -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: isopatch who wrote (74514)	9/25/2000 10:12:45 AM
From: dfloydr	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 95453

Oddly enough, voting for a candidate based on what he says he stands for at election time has a long history of delivering the exact opposite. Many thought Eisenhower a bad choice as a general would be a war monger who would pitch us into a full fledged war with China. Kennedy was going to bring about a social revolution. He failed to do much of anything and had he not been shot would have gone down as a flop. Johnson was against much of what Kennedy stood for but then then delivered the Great Society. Johnson was also against Goldwater as a war monger but gave us Vietnam. Nixon the red hater opened up China. Carter asked "why not the best" yet few of his appointments stand tall in history. Clinton made a lot of noise about honesty in government and how many of his associates have made it in to jail? What we vote for, or against, and what we get are not always the same.