SI
SI
discoversearch

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: chalu2 who wrote (99455)12/3/2000 2:20:26 PM
From: gao seng  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769670
 
I agree and strenuously disagree to your second point. I think. I am vehemntly against a centralized federal voting system that could easily be compromised. I do not think that is what our forefathers would want, either.



To: chalu2 who wrote (99455)12/3/2000 2:31:08 PM
From: Gordon A. Langston  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769670
 
Let's forget about the 10th Amendment and just let the Feds do whatever they want. OK? We wouldn't want a difference of opinion to exist in this country would we? We want "diversity" but not difference, correct?

Edit: I think you will need an Amendment to achieve this.



To: chalu2 who wrote (99455)12/3/2000 3:50:38 PM
From: Scrapps  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769670
 
intense federal involvement

Not a good idea at all! We don't vote in Federal elections...we vote in state elections, even when we elect people to federal office. Other than some funding from the over paid taxes, otherwise known as the Budget surplus, we don't need the feds getting into it. No doubt the states have to clean-up their act, but the feds stay out of it.


HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2026 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News