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 : All About Sun Microsystems -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Charles Tutt who wrote (36179)	10/5/2000 7:28:14 PM
From: cheryl williamson	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 64865

Charles, If necessary, the oil industry should be subsidized temporarily in order to drill & produce more oil. You're wrong, the point IS to lower the price of oil/natural gas. If Clinton/Gore hadn't been asleep at the wheel they would have ecouraged domestic production. Since they haven't and production facilities are at capacity it will take time to expand them. Like it or not, oil & natural gas still drive this economy. It's worldwide consumption that is gradually driving up prices in Europe that are causing our high-tech companies to revise their earnings estimates downward. This is a qualitative shift that is not going to help the computer industry to expand. BTW: they are trying excessive taxation in Europe right now in order to "teach" Europeons how to conserve energy (like gasoline). It isn't working there and it won't work here. Taxes on oil hurt the little guy more than the wealthy, and the little guy won't put up with it here any more than they are in Europe.

To: Charles Tutt who wrote (36179)	10/5/2000 11:36:41 PM
From: Michael L. Voorhees	Respond to of 64865

The US could have, and should have developed alternative energy sources long ago. Corporate Special interests appear to be keeping us stalled in this "dirty", de-stabilizing energy source. I believe that it's time to start weening Corporate greedy from legacy energy sources a little more rapidly. Prolonging the use of this energy source just stalls the inevitable and increases the future economic impacts.

To: Charles Tutt who wrote (36179)	10/6/2000 5:22:18 AM
From: JDN	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 64865

Dear Charles: As a member of "Tread Lightly", the Audobon Society, and a couple of others I can assure you that I am as REASONABLY concerned about the Great Outdoors as anyone else. However, I do not feel that shutting our Great National Parks off to the AMERICAN PUBLIC is the answer. I also believe that most of the easily accessible oil reserves are diminishing. It is my understanding that there are vast oil reserves up in Alaska. If it can be proven that technology has improved to the extent of safely extracting it I sure dont see why we shouldnt. As to raising Excise Taxes and the like that is EXACTLY what Gore intends to do, he also intends to CLOSE NATIONAL PARKS TO VEHICULAR TRAFFIC and close off many of the "Jeep" trails on public land to everyone. I frankly resent that. Take our organization for instance, we NOT ONLY go out of our way to LEAVE ONLY FOOTPRINTS (that is our Motto) but we CLEAN UP what others have dumped. To make a broad exclusion like that is OUTRAGEOUS. This is OUR LAND not GORES. Like it or not Gore is a FLAMING LIBERAL far worse in actuality then Clinton. JDN ps: Just to give you an idea of the EXTREMES we go to we carry disposable plastic bags to put our TOILET PAPER in and bring back with us. As to gas mileage, according to the sticker on the windshield it said 16mpg City 19mpg Highway. Remember though, these Jeeps usually are only driven a few miles a year compared to a commuter vehicle.