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 (134577)	11/10/2001 11:15:25 PM
From: craig crawford	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164684

>> nope. one reason is that we have a trade off. bigger govt and better immigration control vs smaller govt and less immigration control << wrong. we don't need a larger government to control immigration. we just need the government to do it's job and enforce the law. obviously the issue of immigration has nothing to do with the size of government, because liberals have no qualms about increasing the size of government but do nothing about the issue of immigration. nice try. >> are you advocating that govt solve this problem for you? << that is it's job isn't it? We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America >> perhaps you ought to take up arms at the border (then again, maybe not! ;-). we know more govt won't help, right? ;-) << you're acting ridiculous now. nowhere have i ever supported NO government. obviously conservatives like myself advocate limited government. >> again, are you advocating a bigger govt at the borders? ;-) << not necessarily a larger government, just a redirected government! send home troops from overseas and station them on the border. reassignment boys! see i can even play your silly little game. of course we would also not let as many immigrants in under my direction so we could redirect the manpower that is currently in place processing them in favor of deportation activities. of course i would shut down the education department, abolish the irs, shut down a few other departments like the national endowment for the arts, and we would have a smaller government. >> that is one reason i keep saying america wants what they get - who is craig to override america's will? << i have simply made the case that the will of the people is off course. i never said we should abolish the democratic process. don't put words in my mouth :) >> the problem w/ our country is that everyone votes in their self interest - often to the detriment of others in this nation << what is wrong with finding a common interest so we can all vote for the same ideas? >> yes, but they were careful not to become what they so desperately wanted to leave - religious intolerance. it is a fine line we are walking. << just what fine line are we walking? where do you see the religious intolerance taking place? >> except women and black slaves, right? << whatever gave you that impression? nowhere in the declaration of independence does it say "except for women and slaves". >> you see, selfishness often guided the hypocrisy of our founding fathers. << they were only men. they committed sins just like every other man. did anyone claim they were perfect? >> words are cheap << man's words are. that's specifically why they said "that they are endowed by their Creator". in their wisdom they specified that these rights that were declared were not bestowed upon us by men or government, but by God. >> . george washington died of syphilis (yeah, right he never lied! ;-). 2. thomas jefferson had an affair with sally hemmings (slave) and sold his children into slavery. 3. alexander hamilton had at least one affair and took out. << yes, the founding fathers were not perfect. no man is. but they were wise. and they recognized that man is fallible and that for true liberty and justice for all to prevail we must gain our rights from a higher authority. once this was established, the foundation was laid so future generations of women and slaves could appeal in the name of that higher power and gain their freedom. >> of course, some folks want to forget these types of things rather than have an honest discussion of reality. ;-) << not at all. you just don't seem to get it that it's not relevant. you think that if you repudiate the character of the founding fathers of the constitution and declaration, that repudiates the meaning of the document. that simply is not the case. but nice try ;-)