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.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Big Dog's Boom Boom Room -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Raymond Duray who wrote (7023)	2/26/2002 3:34:54 AM
From: Cogito Ergo Sum	Respond to of 206110

That ones funny CB LOL Ray ...confusing adversaries now ? KB on BBR = Boom Boom Room but CB is on BBR = Booms Busts and Recoveries n'est-ce pas ? Maybe Kodiak and Cobalt would be better ? just enjoying the banter :o) regards Kastel a cute and cuddly Canadian

To: Raymond Duray who wrote (7023)	2/26/2002 10:06:26 AM
From: kodiak_bull	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 206110

Ray, They're your words, not mine, which indicate these communistic tendencies, to wit, the idea that money is somehow "guilty," that certain classes (the landowners, the industrialists) are de facto guilty of commercial crimes against the people, that the state has the right to all property (until the state melts away into the communist paradise), that "wealthy landowners" are a suspect set of persons who need to be demonized as "speculators" who "game" the honest bureaucrats. Your fantasy about real estate development could easily be the subject of an opera in Beijing circa 1969. "My gut tells me that anyone spending $5.8 MM didn't just fall off the turnip truck and isn't to be construed as an innocent. He went into the deal with some notion of the fact that there are risks in life." If he's not innocent, then surely he's guilty, right, Commissar Ray? "Why should this land speculator not have to suffer the same risks of loss that I do as a stock market speculator?" Well, I think this "market" gaffe of yours is quite clear. Do you really think it would be fine if the county stepped in and took your stock (or 95% of its value) on the basis that you "assumed the risk"? It's the sign of a very small mind which cannot say, oops. "Funny how sometimes folks have these crazy notions about what deserves to be compensated for and what doesn't in this weird world of warped capitalism we've created." Weird world of warped capitalism? Been rereading Spiro Agnew's old speeches, and just applying them to Chairman Mao's Little Red Book? Why should a guilty capitalist be compensated for the state stealing his property, indeed? A guy with a house in a town of 100,000 wakes up to find bulldozers at his door. You see the county "sensibly" determined that the main artery needs to run through where his living room stands. Should he be compensated? Well, I guess not, after all he assumed the risk of loss when he bought the place. It's what makes a market, and anyway, so what if one guy gets gored when 100,000 benefit. From each (property owner) according to his property, to each (proletarian) according to his needs (for better traffic flow). Message 17112451 Kb