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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kevin Rose who wrote (134026)	3/28/2001 10:30:47 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

I guess the thing that gets me is the inequity of the power of that money. Why should it not have some representation? This may not be a popular point of view, but what is happening is that business and industry- -important components of this country- -are being represented. They don't have votes themselves. They speak through that money. They get a chance to counterbalance that part of the populace that feels they should be allowed to vote themselves benefits and make someone or something else pay. You may call this anti-democratic; so be it. I call it necessary and good sense. And, no, I am not a populist. But you knew that. Someone once said that democracies last until the people discover they can vote themselves benefits. We're there. So, why not promote a little fair competition by limiting the amount of clout these parties possess? Have you really thought out the consequences of this? What happens when their clout is reduced to the point that no candidate gets a majority of electoral votes? It goes to the House, where EACH STATE gets ONE VOTE. That's really a Democratic way of doing things: If you're in Alaska, the votes of your Representatives are worth (I'm guessing here) ten times mine in CA. What is needed in that situation is a parliamentary system. And that means a complete overhaul of the Constitution. They are held out of the debates, thus ensuring that they will not get the votes necessary to get federal funding in the next campaign. This part of the problem can be fixed without finance reform. I still cannot believe that companies give the amount of money they do without expecting a little 'payback'. Of course they expect payback. See above.

To: Kevin Rose who wrote (134026)	3/29/2001 9:53:54 AM
From: Thomas A Watson	Respond to of 769667

Dear kevin if you rant you loose your ability to think clearly. Kevin says. = I guess the thing that gets me is the inequity of the power of that money. In America today, we've seen that there IS a direct relationship between the amount of advertising and the resulting public opinion about that product. Advertising firms have gotten very clever and effective in delivering their message. Kevin this explains the 23.1278 rule of thwock. In a national election that was 48 to 48 to 4 I fail so see any relationship between the amount of advertising and the resulting public opinion about that product of vacant liberal minds vs honesty decency and civility vs let's double up on the rolling blackouts. Kevin do you see the correlation. Good. Kevin says >>>>>So, why doesn't the same pertain to politics? There IS a monopoly; the two established political parties. Kevin this explains rule 123.90 of thwock on odd days. So much money by so many with totally opposite views that smiling at any and taking their money and doing whatever feels good has no penalty. Kevin do you see the correlation. Good. tom watson tosiwmee