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.

Pastimes : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dayuhan who wrote (3042)	3/15/2002 7:51:55 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 21057

I do not like the idea that we seem to be developing a political caste. This is new? John Adams, John Quincy Adams. Theodore Roosevelt, FDR. The Kennedy's. The Browns in CA. Mayor Alioto's daughter appeared to think she had a divine right to be elected mayor of San Francisco. (The voters thought otherwise.) Now GB I and GB II. Inevitably, wealth and fame confer advantages- -for a while. In this country, their influence doesn't seem to be all that lasting. Compare them to British aristocracy, for example. If the worst that can be pointed out is that the influences of wealth and fame last maybe 2 or 3 geneations, we're not doing that badly.

To: Dayuhan who wrote (3042)	3/15/2002 11:05:34 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 21057

The most distressing part of the last election, for me, was not who won it or the manner of its resolution, but the harsh fact that neither man would have been considered an acceptable candidate for dogcatcher if not for political pedigree. Do you really think that or are you exaggerating a bit? I disagree with Gore on a lot of political issues (and with Bush on several as well), and I don't think either of them was exactly the best presidential candidate in history, but I really don't see how they are worse then most other politicians. I think Bush is better then many but that might just be my political bias, so I'll talk about Gore instead. I don't like him. I don't think he is honest even when you use the standard of comparing him to other politicians, and I don't like a lot of his policy ideas, but I hardly think he stands out as a shining example of incompetence or stupidity among politicians. Tim

To: Dayuhan who wrote (3042)	3/16/2002 11:39:25 AM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

My SAT scores were higher than those of Mr. Bush by a fair margin, so perhaps I should be President. Maybe. But you yourself admit they don't mean much. Kennedy was supposed to be smart. He couldn't even get his own program through Congress. He helped dig the Vietnam hole. Carter was supposed to be smart. He not only didn't understand the international politics game, he didn't even seem to know it was being played. And then there were those Republicans leading up to Hoover. They aren't generally regarded as exactly brilliant. They certainly presided over a growing economy, though. Gee, sounds like Clinton, doesn't it- -the guy the left loves to give credit to for the 1990's economy. If he gets credit, why shouldn't those guys? The most distressing part of the last election, for me, was not who won it or the manner of its resolution, but the harsh fact that neither man would have been considered an acceptable candidate for dogcatcher if not for political pedigree. As has been already pointed out, that's hardly true.