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: TimF who wrote (134385)	3/11/2001 1:56:56 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1575421

Tim, Yeah, it does when the society in general is hurt. No desire to keep what your own wealth is not greed. Yes, it is when its at the expense of the civilization of which you have chosen to be a part. "Society in general" might be hurt by the debt, but if the government spends more then it brings in then it should reduce spending. Even keeping spending steady (in inflation adjusted dollars) will eliminate all the government debt, even after a tax cut. And yet weren't you a proponent for increasing military spending? Can't have it both ways. LA's murder rate is greater than all of Japan's. And yet the 2nd amendment is held up as the standard by which we refuse to disarm ourselves. The non-gun murder rate in Japan is also much lower then the non-gun murder rate in the US. Japan's culture and society is different, as are their law enforcement practices. What's different are their gun control laws...they are much more restrictive. Its bull...do we not put up stop lights because it would restrict our freedom of movement. No. It would endanger other people. Do we allow unlimited speeding on our freeways? No...because it would endanger other people? Do we permit the mass arming of the population? Yes....even though it endangers all of us. Allowing me to have a gun in no way endagers you or (because you don't live close to me) my neighbors. In fact it may increases the safety of people around me because its possible that I could defend them against crime. Tell that to the parents who just lost their kids to guns. The greater the number of guns in our society, the greater the chance of being shot.....just standard mathematical probabilities. You live in a world that is too populated to not have gov't. You need to accept it and to accept that this gov't requires $$$ to run and that you are responsible for maintaining that gov't and insuring that it protects the well-being of all its citizens. 1,000 years ago we had a world too populated not to have governmen't. Even primitive tribes of huntergathers had some form of government. I'm not an anarchist. However supporting the idea of government does not mean that government should get a blank check to take more of our wealth and freedom year after year No one has said to give the gov't a blank check but too many want to cut for the sake of cutting without fully exploring the consequences. Furthermore, many people think like you and want as little of their $$$ going to the gov't. They frankly admit that they don't care about other people and do not want to have their $$$ fund programs that provide $$$ for unemployment, food and shelter for the homeless etc. These are the Reagans of the world who released the mentally incompetent on an unsuspecting population in the 80's. We continue to bear the unpleasant consequences of that act. and to ignore the constitution when it becomes an inconvienient check on government's expantion. No one said to ignore the Constitution when it becomes inconvenient. The Constitution was written over 200 years ago when slavery was permitted and women were not allowed to vote. Times change and the Constitution's appropriateness may change as well.....requiring updating and amending. Currently, Aryan Nations, citing the Constitution and the right to bear arms, want to parade, carrying loaded weapons thru the streets of Cour d'Alene. You probably consider that acceptable but the City of Cour d'Alene does not agree....and I agree that it is inappropriate and dangerous. I personally feel people intentionally misinterpret the Constitution re this issue so that they can have their way. Unfortunately, having their way is killing the rest of us. Besides if there is a bad thing happening in a basically good place (too much taxes and regulations in the US) why not fight the bad thing rather then leave. If the tax cuts go in to effect and maybe some other changes you don't like happen are you planning to leave the US? I am American through and through and that's what makes it very hard to leave as well as the restrictions other countries place on you when you try to live and work within their borders, making it difficult to get employment. Nonetheless, I have considered leaving...this country is one of extremes which can lead to needless danger. Its inability to develop a clear view of its position in the world seems to exacerbate these extremes. We can never decide if we are the big brother to the world or its distant cousin. To be a big brother to the less fortunate in the world means we have to spend our $$$ to benefit others. It then seems that to maybe justify these great expenditures, we than shortchange our own less fortunate, creating the extremes of great poverty and great wealth in this country. The consequence of such an extremity is more hostility, less civility, less safety, more paranoia etc. Its this kind of stuff that I hate in our civilization. And granted it exists in other developed countries but not to the degree that it exists here. This is a hard subject for me because as much as I might object, there is much to love about this country as well so that my objections turn to ambivalence. ted