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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mr. Whist who wrote (83839)	11/21/2000 6:12:49 PM
From: kvkkc1	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

The platform is a bunch of crap. Neither party enacts their platform. It's like a budget resolution, non-binding. If people aren't able to understand that, it's their problem. It's the failure to teach modern students, of all races, the basics in civics, that doesn't allow them to understand how the demolibs screw the poor. Those in the lower income strata get screwed by the high rate of taxation to include social security, income(fed, state, local), gas, sales, cigarette, alcohol, phone fees, utility fees, etc. If they'd wake up, and analyze their situation, they'd realize how bad they're getting screwed by those who proclaim to be fighting for them.knc

To: Mr. Whist who wrote (83839)	11/21/2000 6:16:36 PM
From: Srexley	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

You have good points in your arguments, flapjack. They still don't fully explain the 93% to 7% disparity. I think there is a trust issue involved, and the democratic party feeds this mistrust by encouraging it. A good example is Al Gore mentioning how much the top 1% would save with Bush's tax plan. He mentioned it time and time again, and clearly in a way that indicated that those people don't need the money. They are rich. I (Gore) wany YOU to have this money, Bush only wants his greedy friends to have it. Why didn't he bring up what percentage of all U.S. taxes that particular group pays. I believe it is over 10%, but can't come up with the actual numbers right now. I will try to look it up if you dispute this. The point being, his message is one that pits one group against another, and it also implies that the group that did not pay that much tax money deserves more of the money than the people who paid it. I do ok, but am by no means rich. Not even close to the top 1%. But I am a FAIR person, and think it is ridiculous to put out a position to the populace that says if you vote for me I will fight to get some of what THEY worked for to give to you. It reminds me of people I have met that feel that since so & so makes more than me, he/she should buy dinner. The wealthier person may want to pay, but will resent it when TOLD that he SHOULD pay. The democrats are like that with the whole country. Also, regarding education, I thought GWB made a pretty good point (in the debates) that the MOST VIAL form of prejudice was denying equal education to all groups. SO I don't share your view that repubs are against education and demos are for it. Have to admit thought, that on the surface I am not for vouchers. Seemed like George was saying he was IF the school did not perform. If it didn't perform, and was left to keep the status quo, then the dems would be encouraging prejudice against the people who need the help the most. Also, throwing money at everything is not how to solve things. Our problems are more attitude related, and we need to change some attitudes. This ties into my OJ analogy. Why no response? Per your logic, OJ is innocent (if more blacks believe he is). Don't want to inflame things, but I feel it is a good example of the mis-trust of which I speak.