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 : G&K Investing for Curmudgeons -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mike Buckley who wrote (7842)	11/9/2000 4:34:57 AM
From: Bruce Brown	Respond to of 22706

Just because a person has to make a choice among a relatively limited array of options doesn't mean the chosen person is supported..... --Mike Buckley Too late, Mike. The tallied vote results (including the recount) of the candidate who won the Dog Catcher position are: Muderer: 3% Thief: 8% Pettifogger: 13% Drug Pusher: 25% Pedophile: 51% There are a lot of nervous dogs in that county.... BB

To: Mike Buckley who wrote (7842)	11/9/2000 6:56:26 AM
From: DownSouth	Respond to of 22706

Just because a person has to make a choice among a relatively limited array of options doesn't mean the chosen person is supported. It might mean the unchosen candidates are supported less. As an extreme analogy that doesn't directly apply to the candidates in question, I might vote for a thief instead of a murderer if given only those two options but I wouldn't support either one of them. Now that's absurd!

To: Mike Buckley who wrote (7842)	11/9/2000 11:35:10 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 22706

. It might mean the unchosen candidates are supported less. Yeah, Mike, political voting is always a case of "false alternatives". "Do you want a broken arm or a broken leg?" Chose one! Now that the cold war is over, the Presidents biggest chore each day is awarding medals to 4-H groups. (Hell, even in the middle of the cold war, Nixon could not abolish a tea tasting panel in one of the agencies!) What you are really voting for is the gang around Bush or Gore. These are the people who will run the Agencies that regulate our lives. With Bush's gang, I think I will get relatively more economic freedom. But the price I will pay is more control over my reproductive freedom, (which I don't have anymore!), and more censorship. With Gore's gang, I can abort all I want, and have less censorship, but some of his people are real environmental crazy's, and my economic freedom will be much less. In any case, I think, when the vote comes out with a narrow margin for Bush today, that Gore will acknowledge defeat, and that the show will be over. Nixon had a real good case for Voter fraud in 1960, with Daley in Chicago, and Johnson in Texas, voting tombstones, and let it go as too destructive to the country.