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 : The Left Wing Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Don Pueblo who wrote (220)	12/7/2000 9:20:45 AM
From: YlangYlangBreeze	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 6089

I don't really know any one who admits to listening to Limbaugh, but I never thought you did. <G> Forgive me if I offended you? You're right, of course, it is dangerous even when those stereoypes are "positive" like clever Asians, happy fat people, Afro-Americans dance well. Those stereotypes are a burden too, causing us to treat them Pity an average Asian, the depressed fat man, the the black man with a small, o never mind. But we can't really discuss each individual, so we generalize, and facts are that there are enough listeners out there to keep Limbaugh on the air and make his books best sellers. There is politics in churchies who feel justified in enforcing their morality because they believe they know god's will. Some see an adulterer as unfit to be president. Some spend their weekends parading gruesome giant color abortion photo placards in front of the mall where I live. Some think one toke makes you insane, that to be gay is a lifestyle choice, they do. Those people are out there. They didn't vote for Gore. They feel Bush owes them some kind of reciprocal support. If this close election means Bush is on a short leash, well I'm glad for that.

To: Don Pueblo who wrote (220)	12/7/2000 1:03:56 PM
From: DOUG H	Respond to of 6089

That said, I understand the frustration at having the winner of the NATIONAL popular vote lose the election due to the way the electoral college is set up. The problem is that it is possible that the electoral college reform, which I support, would require an amendment to the Constitution. I'm not sure how we can work it out so that everyone is happy, but I think we should try. TLC, I have been giving a lot of thought to the issue of Electorial College vs. Popular vote and wanted to express a view. As we know the country was a different place at the time the Constitution was constructed. Different but in many ways the same. For the purpose of this discussion it is best to look at the difference of agrarian vs. industrial interest. I look for an paralel in the Disney movie "A Bug's Life". In that film the big powerful grasshoppers used their power to force the weaker ants to collect food for the grasshoppers. This was a situation that allowed brute force to rule a weaker class. This was of course alright with the grasshoppers but the ants were clearly oppressed. (I won't get into how they escaped the evil grip of the grasshopper but sufice to say, the ending was of course happy!) Now to draw a parallel, under a pure popular vote situation it is entirely possible for a more powerful class, with a divergent set of self interest to impose it's will on the weaker class thru the ballotbox. The Constitution sees the inherent problems with this. Scenario: Majority rule in the urban and suburban centers decide to pass a law that all agricultural products grown in the United States be provided for free to people living in the urban centers. This is an extreme example but used for illistration. I believe the Dudes who wrote the Constitution saw the problem with this and used the Electorial process to address it. "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." The link below expresses this view somewhat. Message 14863217 Those who ignore history are bound to repeat it: The Fall Of A Republic When the thirteen colonies were still a part of England, Professor Alexander Tyler wrote about the fall of the Athenian republic over two thousand years previous to that time: A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's great civilizations has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, from dependency back to bondage. Alexander Tyler

To: Don Pueblo who wrote (220)	12/7/2000 3:02:08 PM
From: bonnuss_in_austin	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 6089

Hi, TLC, Ylang, Poet et al! Wow, I'm having trouble keeping up reading your posts ... because they contain such salient -- and profound -- points about so many aspects of the U.S. political system. Some great minds here. Best I can do is say, DITTO, to so much that's been written here already within the few days of this board's existence. Such as Ylang's note of "where's the outrage?" YOu guys are a lot more articulate than I am about politics. My education in it is lacking. Avoided it (goverment classes, etc.) Hated politics. And, I realize this year, particularly Republicans. My mental image for years has been one of used car salesmen -- or worse, "tin men" in the 'salvage business,' perhaps <g> with hair plugs, capped teeth, cheap leisure suits and attitudes. Sole goal: screwing people -- the lessers. Through POWER. Control and manipulation. Will stop at nothing to obtain that power. ANYWAY ... TLC -- (hi! like your 'looseing' board and your alias and old profile -- the one with your (was that you?) photo at your trading desk/office with the oversized '60s style gag sunglasses? LOL) Want to respond to what you note here: << The main thing I find unpleasant is the division that has occurred between friends who have lots in common, and happened to vote for different people. I think that is the most unfortunate part of this entire drama. I have my own opinion on why this has happened, and who is most responsible for it, but that's not germane to the conversation>> Great big ditto on that one from me. I have a couple of good friends (R/L) for years -- since college. I've known they had rather "Republican" points of view, but until now, I never realized that they hold what I see as a great contempt for anyone (make that, EVERYONE) who is not "just like them." Among many startling aspects of the woman who I considered my best friend since early college, one is terribly blatant to me -- she's racist. It was the Lieberman candidacy that compelled her to reveal -- in conversation/email -- this aspect of her 'value system' of which I had no inkling before. It's that tired, racist ideology that "All blacks all want to exist on welfare" she doesn't put it quite this way, of course, while sending her children to Catholic schools (they're not Catholic) to avoid the "crime," etc of public schools with all those dangerous "other kinds of people -- the poor, etc." She instead rants LOUDLY along the lines of, "why should her hard-earned tax dollars be squandered on them ... undeserving, LAZY, selfish louts." I don't believe I'll ever view this friend in the same light. I can't. It's intolerable to me. In anybody, much less with alleged 'good friends.' Okay, it's very obvious to me I'm in the 'right place' here ... as John says, what a comfortable environment. Poet, thank you for creating it for us! (PS, if I overlook some typos here, hope you'll understand. John gets on me for that -- I write so much I don't take as much time as I should to proofread my posts here on SI). Good day to all, now ... 'b-i-a' ###