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 : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (15847)	6/6/2001 4:06:30 PM
From: one_less	Respond to of 82486

That's neat. It appears we are starting to get some concensus on that. I don't believe its possible to actually colonize and develop territories anymore. The old premise was that civilization hadn't been started where we were colonizing yet. Obviously, a few hundred years later we are all agreeing that was naive. Even though innovations or societal benefits may result from a modern colony, I don't think that should be a goal. You are out and we are keeping hands off should be the only rule.

To: Lane3 who wrote (15847)	6/6/2001 7:01:16 PM
From: Lane3	Respond to of 82486

Here's an update from the Post on my favorite Bush initiative. washingtonpost.com Bush Assails 'Faith-Based Initiative' Critics Habitat for Humanity Cited as a Model <snip> At the same time, the president's words today encouraged some of his initiative's conservative critics because they interpreted Bush's remarks as a stepping away from his plan's most controversial element, which has caused the legislation to stall in the Senate: the system of direct government grants to religious charities. "The president may be sending a subtle signal to move away from the federal grant-based system and all the inevitable gridlock that goes with it," said Michael Horowitz of the conservative Hudson Institute. Bush cited religious hospitals and colleges as two examples of the success of government backing of religious charities. "Should we eliminate college scholarships where a child can go to a faith-based university?" he asked. "Should we say Medicaid or Medicare recipients can't take their federal money to a religious hospital?" Both types of institutions receive government funds primarily through their patients or students -- a system similar to the voucher system that has much broader support than the direct-grant proposal. Liberal critics argue that direct funding of religious charities could cause the government to bankroll programs that coerce participants to be religious. Conservative critics worry that government funding of religious charities will dilute the charities' religious mission. <snip>