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: Tenchusatsu who wrote (158077)	1/15/2003 10:05:31 AM
From: Alighieri	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1591019

According to liberals, those who never served in the military (or have no relatives who did) should not have a say in whether we go to war or not. ("Chicken hawks," as Al calls them.) I never said what you just posted. It would impossible to do the above. I maintain that if all the folks in the US had an equal chance of serving or having their children serve in the wars our leaders get us mixed up in, then.... (1) polls would represent America's support for wars fairly (2) we would get involved in far fewer wars (3) support for this war would hit rock bottom and (4) we would not go to Iraq at all. Al

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (158077)	1/15/2003 2:08:32 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1591019

Ted, <None, I didn't start the war.......why do you ask?> OK, then how many relatives did Clinton send to Kosovo and Somalia? After all, if you think Bush should send at least one relative to war, you obviously think Clinton should have done the same. Oh, I see.......as I told Tim, I didn't decree the law until this week. Had I decreed the law back in '98, Clinton would have had to send someone, preferably his bro. Does that make you happy now? ;~)) So what's your point [re: tax cuts]> According to liberals, those who never served in the military (or have no relatives who did) should not have a say in whether we go to war or not. ("Chicken hawks," as Al calls them.) Do you read dyslexically or invertedly, or what? What I said was a leader starting a war should be required to send in one of their own as a prerequisite to war. It just might cut down on the number of wars we fight. If that's the case, then why should those who pay very little taxes in the first place decide who should get tax breaks? This is one society and not one with 260+ million fiefdoms. I know this is a hard concept for conservatives to get but just like in a marriage, at times, some of us have to do more than 50% and in some cases, given certain circumstances, some have to do more than 50% a lot of the time. I know you all don't want to hear that but really, that's the way life is sometimes. And lest you be worried that one day you will be rich carrying the burden for some others; I wouldn't worry too much unless you stand to inherit a lot of dinero from your folks. The reason being is that recent findings show that the standard horatio alger story is a big American pipe dream; that is, to be rich in this country usually means you have to be born rich. The John Edwards of this country are very much the exception, not the rule. So I would not cry to badly for the rich of this country. They are very fortunate to be living here, enjoying their millions, and need to pick up the tab graciously. And no, Steve, just like you're comment re the schools in Arkansas, this is not a form of communism. Poor communism has such a bad rap! ted