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 (149442)	8/9/2002 5:22:58 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1580035

Ted, I said the more valuable shop should be saved if no one is in danger of getting hurt of killed. When (like in these riots) there is a lot of danger of people getting hurt or killed then protecting people should be the top priority, and poor people should be as protected by the police as rich people are. I mean, if we apply your reasoning to people It doesn't rightfully apply to people. With property it makes sense to save $20mil rather then $70k. By the same reasoning if I could save my car or my TV I would save my car. But the police should consider protecting poor individuals from physical harm or death to as important of mission as protecting rich individuals. no matter who pays for the police. If who pays for the police was the criteria then it would support protecting the wealthy more then the poor because they pay a lot more in taxes. However I don't think "who pays for the police" is a good criteria to use. Tim