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 : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Road Walker who wrote (118425)	11/19/2000 8:13:15 PM
From: Eric K.	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

John-- Re: The truth is there is very little difference between Gore and Bush, and even less difference between citizens that are D's or R's. Consider the following issues: =>Vision of foreign policy-- moralizing humanitarianism versus rational self-interest =>Social security-- privatization versus preserve the existing, successful model =>Recent (within last ten years) position on abortion-- let the states decide versus mostly on demand =>Hate crimes-- all life is equal, crime is violating social contract and right to existence versus we need to send a message about the unacceptability of hatred and intolerance for gays & minorities in our society =>Gun Control-- instant check and minimal restrictions versus bans on concealed weapons and extended waiting periods =>Role of government-- maintain equality of opportunity and accept the invariable failures versus deliberately and carefully strive for everyone to do well =>Education-- try to head towards privatization and charter schools versus reduce class sizes and help the public schools improve =>Environment-- market-based incentives and technological improvement to reduce emissions versus fundamental changes in human behavior, especially in terms of selfish resource usage I tried to phrase the candidates' positions in positive terms, without accentuating what I view as the holes in their positions. The most significant commonalities are positions on criminal justice, drug law liberalization, reducing vulgarity of pop culture, overall "happy; we're doing well, but we can do even better" message. I think, all issues considered, these are very different candidates representing very different ideologies and visions of the world. This whole effort by Nader and "independents" (what is that supposed to mean?-- self-flattery by viewing yourself as one of the few who is intelligent enough to consider the complexity and ambiguity inherent in politics and ideology?) to paint these candidates as the same is misguided and downright wrong. -Eric

To: Road Walker who wrote (118425)	11/19/2000 9:46:37 PM
From: Joe NYC	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

John, First, if someone would waste time doing a study like that, they would obviously have an agenda. If something doesn't agree with your "objective" opinion, it is not to be believed because it was done people with agenda. Third, that stuff is purposely divisionist, and meant for people who don't think. What if it is true? The truth is the most divisionist thing you can imagine. That's why we hear all these half-truths during the campaign. As far as being for people who don't think, what do you mean by that? You've managed to insult half the population by calling them morally inferior, is that really your intention? Just because they happen to be a Democrat? Again, I mentioned an article I read that wrote about a study, so with me writing about it, you are reading 2nd interpretation, but still it seems like it hit the nerve. Even though you may prefer to keep your head in the sand, the Democrat activists who go to jails and homeless shelters to recruit people to vote know something that you may be denying to yourself. Joe