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 : Al Gore vs George Bush: the moderate's perspective -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: long-gone who wrote (7347)	11/24/2000 12:54:33 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10042

Westerners suck at stewardship of the land- they overgraze their own land and government land, they create huge toxic tailing piles- which over a hundred years later are still a huge problem, they rolled over and eliminated every culture between them and the coast in the Westward expansion- a particular favorite of mine is the shooting for sport of the California coastal Indians. They cross fenced the land and disrupted the migration of the buffalo. I could just go on and on about the "noble" Westerners, but why bother?

To: long-gone who wrote (7347)	11/24/2000 2:52:59 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 10042

Westerners have always been willing & able to fight, kill or die for the land handed down through generations! Thank you. That was helpful. I can certainly understand why you aren't a Gore fan. But it doesn't explain why people would be inclined to "grease up the Winchester" if Gore were to win in a disputed election versus if he had won in a landslide. Any thoughts? Conversely, do you think it would be appropriate for Gore partisans who are strongly pro-choice or green, for example, to "grease up their Winchesters" if Bush becomes President? Karen