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: Hawkmoon who wrote (1971)	10/10/2000 11:46:24 AM
From: Cage Rattler	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10042

Ron: Check out Bill Morris' article in the NY Post <QUOTE in part> AS he was defeating Bush in debate, Al Gore continued to undermine his candidacy by fibbing his way out of the presidency. He visited Texas during the fires ... but he didn't. He never criticized Bush's inexperience ... but he did. A school in Miami makes kids have lunch at 9:30 a.m. due to lack of space ... but it doesn't. Another is so overcrowded, a young girl has to stand ... but she needn't. He invented the Internet. He founded the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. His mother-in-law pays more for her medication than does his dog. "Love Story" was based on him and Tipper. He was shot at in Vietnam. His journalism sent politicians to jail. He didn't know the Buddhist Temple event was a fund-raiser. He was in the bathroom when fund-raising was planned at the White House. All alluring stories. All untrue. <END QUOTE> The Rest of the Story at www.nypost.com

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (1971)	10/10/2000 11:52:47 AM
From: cosmicforce	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10042

Yeah, and if you combine him with Rush Limbaugh, you've got the real news scoop, dontcha?? Maybe for right wing nuts. The major problem that I see with old Paul, is that he is talking about confiscation in 3rd world countries that aren't democratic republics. In fact, they were all dictatorships or autocratic republics. Besides, I haven't seen anyone here or in the elections who is talking about confiscation here! I even heard old Al Gore talking about hunting rifles. Now I like my handgun, but I could see trading it for a 18" shotgun for my purposes. But THAT isn't even on the table. Background checks are great. I support them. They make sense. I've already explained why 10 day holds make no sense for people who own guns. What about 72 hour holds for people that start acting erratic but who own guns. You can pull ANYONE off the street for 72 hours if you suspect they are nuts, but you can't even check to find if they have a weapons store. What about public health weapon removal? Do you support that? All Constitutional rights have some infringement or provision for infringement. Like assembly. You do have to get permits. Or speech. There are certain kinds of speech that aren't protected like slander or provocative "fighting words". Or like quartering. You can't refuse if you are compensated. Even search and seizure. They just have to have a warrant. What some people here are asking for is an absolute right. A right that NO OTHER Constitutional right has been elevated to or otherwise enjoys. THAT is ridiculous. But I guess you better go check with Paul Harvey for "the rest of the story".