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: gao seng who wrote (140788)	4/27/2001 3:17:33 PM
From: hamsandwich	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

gao seng, Be careful saying things like "I enjoy your posts." Not only will people talk, but you might get kicked out of the "brotherhood." <vbg> Nope, no position in HOMS. That pig will give though, just as its breathern have done. Its just a matter of when. Its interesting you believe Greenspan is "on Bush's side." I'm not sure I would necessarily agree based upon some of his actions. In fact, I would almost opine that he is more concerned with his reputation at this point, than with that of the administration (he may have a genuine concern for the economy which I am selling short <g>, but it certainly hasn't been evident from his monetary policies of late). With the usual disclaimer of, I don't know much. As far as your sweeping generalization that "left wingers" are in favor of creating more laws and "right wingers" want to enforce current laws, it is hard to argue with generalizations. I would point out that you appear to be in favor of the recent Assault on Pregnant Woman Act (or whatever the true misnomer is), which is "more laws." The many states already have laws which cover such a bad act. If the states do not, perhaps the states are capable of crafting such a law, yes? Perhaps you should answer your own questions regarding this piece of legislation. >>>>>>>But If the laws have no effect, why more laws? Surely we both recognize it is a problem. But if laws aren't the solution, then how can you say we need more laws?>> As a general matter, I support the enforcement of current laws. If the states prove unable or unwilling to do so, then the feds can step in with necessary statutes or rules. back to the daily grind, ham