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: greenspirit who wrote (41436)	10/2/2000 1:48:46 AM
From: phyxter	Respond to of 769670

No, your question, describing a sick and obscene hypothetical, had absolutely nothing say to my supposed "all or nothing abortion rights demand". Mutilation was not the question at issue, and did not even reflect on the question at issue. My opinion derives not from "female rights", but from "governmental powers", and not on the right to mutilation, but on the right of government to compel woman to bear a child against her will. Question for you: does a government have the right to compel abortions? If not, then how does it derive the power to forbid them? I take offense at the question you asked, sort of akin to the "well, sir, why did you kill your mother", style of political debate, and the manner in which it was asked. But I'll take as honest your suggestion that you are nevertheless interested in my thinking on this subject. First, I violated a promise to myself to keep out of any debate on abortion on this board - I view this, like a person's relationship with their God or gods or whatever they believe, as a very personal thing that should stay personal. Second, I have struggled with this question for many years. What is right? What is wrong? And here is where I find this charge of "flip-flop" on this issue particularly empty (i.e. Gore changing his mind on this question). I find myself very uneasy about the question of abortion and, when I was younger, had much stronger feelings on the subject; I remember major debates with friends and family about abortion. I have since seen too much and known to many people who this has affected much more directly, talked and counseled friends who have made what for them was an agonizing choice, and came to the fundamental question: Do I have that right, to tell this person that may not end their pregnancy? Is my opinion that much more valid than theirs? They are more immediately affected by the choice involved than I. The real key question in this debate reduces to: what is government's role in this question? Does the government, your Governor, your county commissioner, your neighbors, your family, even your husband, have the right to compel you to bear a child? And, to this question, despite my personal unease about the issue, there is only one answer: No. If I cannot take this power unto myself, I certainly cannot hand it over to government. And that ends the question for me. God will work it all out in the end. Not government.

To: greenspirit who wrote (41436)	10/2/2000 2:58:23 AM
From: Mr. Whist	Respond to of 769670

Auto Workers Discount GOP Claims by KATHY BARKS HOFFMAN Associated Press Writer LANSING, Mich. (AP) -- Flush with overtime pay and on track for another year of record vehicle sales, auto workers don't seem to buy Republican Gov. John Engler's message that Al Gore's environmental views threaten Michigan's economy. In fact, it's hard to find many people in the auto industry -- executives or union members -- who accept the argument that the Democratic presidential nominee would throw a monkey wrench into the auto industry if he wins the White House in November. James Owensby, 53, who works on the assembly line at the Delphi Automotive Systems Corp. plant in Saginaw, Mich., thinks it's only a matter of time before other politicians start echoing Gore's call for automobiles that pollute less and go farther on a gallon of gas. ''We're going to be thrust to come up with engines that are more fuel-efficient and even gas-free. ... We need to evolve with it,'' Owensby said. ''I understand that he's pro-environment. ... But Al Gore, he's my man.'' Good times in the auto industry and the national economic boom make workers less likely to buy the doom-and-gloom Republican message, said Craig Ruff of Public Sector Consultants, a think tank in Lansing, Mich. ''Times are too good right now. People aren't worried,'' Ruff said. ''They just can't see that ... anything a president can do can harm their job security.'' Despite signs their campaign may be going unheard, Republicans are working hard to make Gore unpalatable to auto workers, many of them swing voters expected to help decide the presidential election in this crucial battleground state. A Sept. 26-28 poll of 600 likely Michigan voters by EPIC/MRA of Lansing, Mich., shows Gore leading GOP presidential candidate George W. Bush 45 percent to 39 percent, with Green Party candidate Ralph Nader getting 3 percent and 13 percent undecided. The poll has a margin of error of 4 percentage points either way. Many Republicans, including Engler, think Bush can make inroads among auto workers by reminding them that Gore wrote in his 1992 book, ''Earth in the Balance,'' that the internal combustion engine is ''a mortal threat to the security of every nation.'' ''He thinks he's smarter than the auto industry, the oil industry, the men and women who build the cars,'' the GOP governor said. ''The fight isn't settled in the auto plants.'' But among auto executives, Gore's goal of eliminating the internal-combustion engine over a 25-year period to address global warming isn't seen as extreme. ''If any one would love to take the auto industry out of the emissions business, it would be the auto companies,'' said Don Walkowicz, executive director of USCAR, created by the Big Three American manufacturers -- General Motors, Ford and DaimlerChrysler -- to do pre-competitive research on environmentally friendly vehicles. Walkowicz pointed to the cooperation between the vice president and Big Three as they've worked on ways to mass-produce vehicles with hybrid engines through the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles. ''You have to give Al Gore credit, because for such an ambitious goal ... he realizes there has to be a partnership between industry and government,'' Walkowicz said. ''I think he understands the enormity of the challenge.'' David Cole, director of the Office for the Study of Automotive Transportation at the University of Michigan, said Gore could cost the auto industry a lot of money -- but not jobs -- if he tried to push for changes that consumers don't want and won't buy. But he doesn't find Gore's goal unattainable. ''It's a very difficult goal but one that is more doable than I thought a few years ago,'' Cole said. ''The industry is making tremendous progress.'' Polls show Gore leading Bush not only in Michigan, but in other must-win industrial states such as Illinois and Pennsylvania. All have significant numbers of auto plants or auto suppliers. For Engler, that's even more reason to warn auto workers of the threat he says Gore poses. During a recent appearance on NBC's ''Meet the Press,'' the Republican governor referred to ''the global warming nonsense'' and attacked Gore for supporting the Kyoto Treaty on the environment, which Engler contends will put the U.S. auto industry at a disadvantage with foreign competitors and drive the price of gasoline up 50 to 75 cents. ''To have your jobs put at risk because of radical policies, which would throw coal miners in Illinois and Pennsylvania and West Virginia out of work, throw auto workers out of work, Gore will have a lot of vulnerabilities on that,'' Engler said.