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 California Energy Crisis - Information & Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Raymond Duray who wrote (1458)	9/30/2002 4:34:24 PM
From: LPS5	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1715

NO! Hurting inside? Aw. LOL! Like I said, not an ounce of substantiation. All you've got is wishful thinking and fear, and not in that order. If you cannot see how much more rot there is in our system... Rest assured, I see it. The ever-encroaching welfare state, the penal nature of the tax code, Constitutional property right violations by the Department of Justice, Byzantine drug laws, civil liberties violations by police departments, religious fundamentalists permitted to shape domestic and foreign policy - worse yet, from under a tax free shelter, years of appeasement of hostile foreign governments, and the list goes on. ...rewarding these criminal enterprises... Truly "criminal" enterprises should be shut down. None are more criminal in scope or size than the government bureaucracy that acts as an instrument of coercion, has utterly undermined the Constitution - and in a near-inversion of its' principles - endeavors to keep people from being responsible for their actions. That's the first enterprise that needs to be scrutinized. You've only referred to a "military-industrial complex," incidentally. Got any specific examples, and evidence, from credible sources? Surely you wouldn't suggest that I should take you exclusively at your word...? ...than some helpless woman and child... None are helpless who are willing to help themselves. "Fish for a man, he eats for a day..." I personally don't sell the human ability to survive, to succeed against odds, to turn a bad situation around short. Why do you? Personal experience? It's my "woman and child" I'm most concerned with. That's who my effort goes to first and foremost. There's a pecking order after that, depending upon whether we're talking about work, my community, social interaction, the specific nature of the need, etc. ...then you truly are monstrous. :-) "In your opinion" is what you meant, right? If the Constitution of the United States is monstrous, and looking out for ones' own family, friends, and self first monstrous, I'll gladly take that title. Proudly, in fact. LPS5

To: Raymond Duray who wrote (1458)	9/30/2002 9:33:40 PM
From: Dan B.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1715

I thought that was a very fine reply by LPS5, but thought I'd add this. I don't see LPS5 kicking the downtrodden in the face. You say you fail to understand why he is kicking the downtrodden in the face...but first you have to ask, is he? There is grand difference between maintaining the right to refuse to give to the undeserving(as one may see it), and stealing from the downtrodden(which would indeed resemble kicking- if a wider class of people than the undeserving). Within our lives, we have choices to make within our sphere of influence. Considering that huge portions, up to 2/3's or so, of government welfare monies(in general) go to Government employees who administer it, I'd rather have the tax breaks and count on the American People to give at least half what they get back where it helps most, in community after community across the Country. More money to more helpful places(raising the lot of the downtrodden), would be the result. More neighbors could afford to help neighbors as/when needed. The above simply is not in the realm of the immoral, as you may see. I disagree with LPS5 if he believes there is to be a higher level of swindling going on with "less" regulation in place. The rule of law which you respect is relatively simple and covers all wrongdoing in the context of a trial. Regulations allow wrongdoing Corporations, for instance, to argue the they "met all their known legal obligations," and actually gain sympathy and acquittals. Removing regulations is a reward to to the people/consumers/downtrodden, while Corporations then will remain liable if they screw up in any de-regulated business they may be in, and without mercy & light sentencing, unlike now. Freedom Works in many ways, Dan B