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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (146371)	4/25/2002 5:32:32 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572295

Its like saying a 300 lb guy is entitled to eat three times the calories that I do because he makes twice as much money per year as I do. I guess he can.........but it's still gluttony. Bad analogy. Perhaps you'd feel differently if the 300 lb guy is responsible for producing the subsistence for, say, 10 families. Then, by damned, if wants to eat Wendys triples with cheese, you'll damned well allow it. When we're taking care of the rest of the world, it would seem that we should be permitted to use a little more oil than others. And we also average nearly three cars per family, a couple of recreational vehicles...boat, snowmobile etc; at least one SUV plus maybe a dirt bike.........I mean we have more toys that consume more oil than is necessary period. So what? Is there some reason we should NOT have these things? Is there some reason we should NOT be allowed to take advantage of the wealth we have created? The liberal agenda is to take away our freedom. Our freedom to spend our money any way we'd like (unless it is paying more taxes, of course). You position is blatently consistent with that agenda.

To: tejek who wrote (146371)	4/25/2002 6:19:51 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572295

Its like saying a 300 lb guy is entitled to eat three times the calories that I do because he makes twice as much money per year as I do. I guess he can.........but it's still gluttony. If the 300lb guy is a football or Shaq, or other large athlete. player he might burn off three times as much as you do considering his size and likely greater level of activity. If the 300lb guy is a tub of lard the reason why it is gluttony is because it harms him. Our use of oil helps us become rich, and helps us produce things that help not only us but the rest of the world. Its not the equivilent of gulttony. The US is the equivilent of that 300 lb athelete not a tub of lard. And we also average nearly three cars per family, a couple of recreational vehicles...boat, snowmobile etc; at least one SUV plus maybe a dirt bike.........I mean we have more toys that consume more oil than is necessary period. And if the people of the third world had the money they wouldn't want or get any of these things? As for multiple RV's, boats and snowmobiles that isn't a "per family" thing. A typical family may have the 3 cars but not all the other stuff. Is it unreasonable for a family with 5 drivers to have 3 to 5 cars? How is this excessive? Really? What would you use? The number of guns vs the level of oil consumption? That would be nonsensical. A better one would be the percentage of the worlds production vs the level of oil use, but a better way to determine excessive is is the current level of oil use bankrupting us, or causing us massive horrible damage. It isn't doing any of those things. We can afford it, we benefit from it, it isn't hurting the rest of the world, so it's not excessive. Thanks for the update. That 2% difference really changes the argument for me. Its means your figures were 66% off. Tim