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.

Technology Stocks : Amazon.com, Inc. (AMZN) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Skeeter Bug who wrote (132743)	10/10/2001 6:27:46 AM
From: craig crawford	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164687

>> laws limit. limit what a person can do and personal sovereignty is reduced for everyone under that law. << don't we have laws that effectively limit what the government can do? >> anytime this nation agrees to do anything it limits its sovereignty. from that angle, there NEVER has been a time that this nation was totally sovereign << obviously we will never agree. i maintain that you can do all sorts of things without cedeing sovereignty. if we can't agree on this fundamental point, then let's just move on. >> there is no reason to believe this would've led to a different ge/hon outcome. << like i said, i will cede you the point, because i have grown weary of arguing with you about it. >> i just don't agree that europeans have the keys to congress. sure, they have bargaining power - as they should. we have bargaining power - as we should. << and as i have said, our politicians don't always have the best interests of the country in mind. we don't even have to disagree with a body like the EC to surrender sovereignty. we are often a willing participant in the drive to surrender sovereignty. >> in the end, the big kid always wins in these cases << big kid as in the social and political elites. what about the rest of america? >> one would have to argue that american leaders actively desire to geive up control of the US, imho, for it be credible << that is exactly my argument.