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.

Pastimes : Clown-Free Zone... sorry, no clowns allowed -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Howard C. who wrote (34118)	11/6/2000 12:55:51 PM
From: LLCF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 436258

<Now that clown from Texas "runs" a clownish form of government that meets irregularly and which gives the Governor position a weak voice anyway.> But don't you have to look and say "why are they doing this"... "what's the history?" I guess 'dissing' folks is a whole lot easier. LOL DAK

To: Howard C. who wrote (34118)	11/6/2000 1:34:46 PM
From: pater tenebrarum	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 436258

i guess a lot depends here on who the winner surrounds himself with. as Reagan has shown, for the prez it can be enough to be a good communicator... now, i don't expect to be able to change your mind, nor do i want us to go into too lengthy a debate over this here, as the political discussion already takes up a lot of space, but allow me this final observation: the Robot's commitment to caring is a bit scary imo, as it smacks of more government and more regulation, in short less freedom. not that i'd expect government to shrink under Dumb-bell...only grow a little less fast. the one third party candidate who comes closest to my personal preferences is the Libertarian candidate, whose program consists mostly of propositions on how to shrink government and put more power and responsibility into the hands of individuals. note, i'm not necessarily a proponent of complete anarchy...i don't think it would work. i also think that there ARE areas in which the state can and should be active, and i'm not against a social safety net either. however, i do believe that the state should concentrate on those areas that are not amenable to free market solutions, as well as ensuring a 'level playing field' for all participants in the private sector. everything else is superfluous, and essentially a waste of scarce resources. certainly the catalogue of promises emanating from both mainstream candidates disqualifies them in that sense. i realize of course that much of this is just electioneering, and that most promises will have to be sacrificed on the altar of reality anyway. all things considered, i don't think it's going to make much of a difference who wins. the very same vested interests that rule right now will continue to rule...under either candidate. i am actually astounded that the supporters of both are so ardently insistent that there's such a big difference. there isn't, imo.

To: Howard C. who wrote (34118)	11/6/2000 2:07:24 PM
From: Ken98	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 436258

<<Gore is a real detail man, and man, he knows every little detail about how the Federal gov't works, and doesn't work.>> THAT is categorically the reason I am NOT voting for him. And as to the "clownish" form of gov't in Texas, I can assure you that no one who actually lives here in Texas (of either political ilk) has any desire to change the constitutional elements of our form of gov't. Your comments are spoken like a true carpetbagger.