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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: combjelly who wrote (131197)	1/31/2001 3:54:35 PM
From: pgerassi	Respond to of 1573848

Dear Combjelly: Yet, the government withholds money derived from gasoline taxes from states that do not enact a law defining a person drunk if blood alcohol is less than or equal to some setting (first it was 0.10% then 0.08%). The government holds money from a college if, the college fails to do x, y, and z even when the money is to be used in parts that have nothing to do with x, y, or z. Congress writes laws this way all of the time. Many force their ideals for affirmative action, PC, and others. One act is to withhold highway money if seat belt laws are not enacted. These practices are even more unconstitutional than the Bush's executive order. I don't hear any complaining about it from you. As to separation of church and state, the original intent was to stop government supporting one (or a group of) religion(s) over all the others. Matter of fact, discrimination against any one religion is against the constitution directly by admendment. Matter of fact, many religious institutions receive tax breaks and I would consider that to be support. There is a big difference between "one" and "all". That is what you missed. BTW, the Democrats feel it is ok to fund these "family planning" programs as long as the money is not used to promote abortions but, no faith based organization can ever receive money from the government even if the money is not used to teach any faith, as the policies were during the Clinton administration. I happen to think that the family planning policy is wrong and the Clinton policy of no faith based organization support is also wrong. What is your opinion of these two policies? Actually religion is at the heart of both policies. As to highway funding, that is part of a dispute between VA and MD. Maryland wants to use "prevailing rates" (euphemism for union rates) to build an interstate highway bridge over the Potomac while Virginia does not. I believe, even in Texas, interstate highway and federal construction are forced to use "prevailing rates". One of the good ideas for highway construction being used in Wisconsin is to have all construction contracts include warranties or guarantees that the object being built will last at least a lifespan determined. This stops the low cost bidder from using materials and construction methods that result in marginal quality construction. Yes, it costs more in the short run, but stops many headaches and expense later on. Usually we get something that lasts much longer than planned. Pete