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 : Impeach George W. Bush -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (9011)	1/1/2002 2:46:22 AM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93284

All those typical liberal points of view like zero corporate taxes, no federal earmarks, no tax deductions for children, the States can take care of there own federal highways. Are you claiming these as you're views? Yes, I've already posted them as my views. And what do you mean by "federal earmarks"? Federal funds sent back to the States that have no direct national benefit. e.g., the $2M for fixing up a coroporate airport sponsored by Tom Delay; the museum in Nevada to show Nevada's contribution and sacrifices to the development of nukes. I previously posted the link to the budget and cited the line to nix. Re those Afghanis: According to US TV news, burkas are coming off and girls are once again being educated. You think they won't like this? Some have, some have not. It's determined by what the prevalent religious belief is of the locality. They have the choice, that's what's good. On the other hand some keep the burkas on, because the Northern alliance has a history of capturing the pretty ones and selling them. [I posted the story previously]. That's not so good. By the way, it's not what you believe that makes you a free thinker, it's why you believe it that makes you a free thinker. Compiling liberal or conservative views of a particular person is only an indirect indicator at best. Most people believe that the massive spending on SDI during the Reagan years resulted in the Soviets going bankrupt with paralleled spending. A quite reasonable hypothesis. But where's the proof? They've been told it 1,000 times? I saw no comensurate spending on expanding the Soviet nuclear forces or the already existing Soviet ABM systems during the 1980s, either in the unclassified or classified literature. I have seen literature that indicates that the Soviets were already bankrupt at the time Reagan took office. That information is now available in a declassified CIA report on the economic analysis of the Soviet Union for 1978-1979. Available through the National Archives at Greenbelt, MD. [It's not on-line, you can see it at the Archives, or order it] So as soon as someone shows me the facts to the contrary, I'll believe it in a flash. Until then, it's just another Reagan era con. jttmab