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: Eric K. who wrote (118432)	11/19/2000 8:40:56 PM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Erik, re: 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. Take a second look at your list. It's a collection of political rhetoric, from both sides. There isn't one issue on that list that will change in a significant way under Gore or Bush. The truth is that almost every decision made by the executive branch is filtered through every option, and the ultimate action is determined by the ramifications, political or economic. Democrat/Republican Liberal/Conservative has little to do with anything. In an election, the candidates search out issued to debate, that will please their constituency and not piss off the other voters too much. It'a a game of saying what the most people want to hear, and saying it with the most conviction. It's marketing... John BTW... I'm more of a political agnostic, than independent. And there is very little "complexity or ambiguity", it seems pretty simple and clear.

To: Eric K. who wrote (118432)	11/19/2000 9:53:29 PM
From: Amy J	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

RE: "I tried to phrase the candidates' positions in positive terms, without accentuating what I view as the holes in their positions" ------ Hi Eric, I think you did a good job explaining their positions in a positive way, because I see (but with a quick glance) the pros to both sides in your post, which is good, because it appears you effectively portrayed both sides in a positive without apparent bias. On another note, John's post was about the inappropriateness of prejudgingly declaring all people of one particular Party as evil and all people of another Party as good. Maybe another way to say this is: if your colleague at work is of another Party, does that mean s/he is a "bad" person? Of course it doesn't mean this, which is what John's "high-level, intellectual" objective post was about. Let's hope the folks on this thread at least see that, right? I wish you would post more on the Election topic, because your posts are interesting and challenging for me. It's boring to debate when a person hasn't read the material who then (as a result of not reading the material, but not as a result of intending to extend the discussion for good) gets stuck on a tangential point that is unrelated but is used to block the debate from reaching a higher level of what could be an interesting debate. I can tell you haven't read the material, however, you seem to have an ability to get to the next level and debate at a higher-level in a very interest and challenging way. I like that. Keep it up. I think you are a challenging debater. Btw, I believe you have not voted for the candidate who I voted for, which proves that my opinion is purely based upon the quality of your debate (not because you have the same opinion as me - because you do not, based upon other posts you wrote), however, I am finding your debates to be interesting and worthwhile. Regards, Amy J PS Nonetheless, I think you have misinterpreted John's point (as I suggested above) - so, I would reread John's post, because I think you will find John's point very valid.