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: Dayuhan who wrote (18161)	7/14/2001 10:28:23 AM
From: E	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

Message 16075389 hehehehe

To: Dayuhan who wrote (18161)	7/14/2001 10:45:49 AM
From: E	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

BTW, just in case, let me prepare you for the typical Bush-fan response as I have observed it: Replies are most likely to begin, "At least...." They will often reference the former president, Bill Clinton, and occasionally the former Vice President, Al Gore. They may go so far as to describe you as a fan of one or both of those gentlemen. They will make ad hominem attacks on the reporter or call the paper 'liberal' rather than respond to any specific fact or idea presented. They will make liberal use of the word 'liberal.' They will reply unsubstantively yet emotionally vividly. Smilies will have their place.

To: Dayuhan who wrote (18161)	7/14/2001 11:52:00 AM
From: jimpit	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 82486

Steven... I followed a link on another board to your post. I presume the subject(s) are the president's tax cut, military spending, etc. Just thought I'd add my two cents worth to attempt to set the record straight... I'm not interested in your response, since I don't really have the time to argue the points. I think your premise is flawed from the beginning. It's really up to you to find the truth... if you're really interested in knowing the truth. Part of your comments: "...I will, I confess, be interested to see if anyone is willing to argue in favor of the proposition that it is possible to increase spending, decrease revenue, and still balance a budget..." "increase spending"... Is overall spending increased? Will there be a re-allocation of funds? Will some programs that are not working, as they were envisioned, be phased out (rare in politics, anywhere, much less Washington)? "decrease revenue"... If you're equating a tax cut to a decrease in government revenues, history has already proved you wrong. Although not widely reported (by the vast left-wing, liberal media), revenues to the government coffers INCREASED after Reagan's tax cut. Also, if you're old enough... remember, the liberal Dems and the major media pooh-poohed the Reagan/Bush "...the economy will GROW itself out of deficit..." and "...trickle-down economics..." theories as "pie-in-the-sky" ideas! Well, don't look now... but, guess what's been happening these last 10, or so, years? Psssst... don't spread it around, though... the liberal press and the socialist Dems will be pissed! Try visiting some alternate sources of news... like the Washington Times, NewsMax, FoxNews, Drudge, WorldNetDaily, etc. and you may get a more balanced view of what is REALLY happening. Believing the biased, censored crapola you're being spoon-fed from the likes of the Nightly SPINnews© broadcasts will only make you another sheeple. Good luck. Jim