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 : Ask Michael Burke -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Freedom Fighter who wrote (85152)	11/11/2000 7:12:04 PM
From: Skeeter Bug	Respond to of 132070

>>Machines may not be perfect, but they don't cheat. << wayne, and therin lies the problem... ;-)

To: Freedom Fighter who wrote (85152)	11/11/2000 7:32:27 PM
From: wiz	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 132070

Wayne I've read your stuff here, and like your posts.. But, when you say you are anything but a Democrat basher.. well.. Wayne.. I aint never seen it. But it sounds good..lol Ak

To: Freedom Fighter who wrote (85152)	11/11/2000 8:49:14 PM
From: Knighty Tin	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 132070

Wayne, The selectiveness in political thinking is not a new concept. I am reading a biography of Edward III of England. During the 100 years war, there was a controversy over who should be king of France (or lord of a lesser domain) if the former king had no surviving sons or brothers. Some said that if the king had a daughter and she had a son, he should be king. Some said that if the king had a sister and she had a son, he should be king. They fought about this for more than 100 years, give a few timeouts for The Black Plague. However, the English and French position on who should inherit changed several times. In each case, it turned out that the change depended upon whom each party had in line for the lordship or throne. <g>