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 : The Castle -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: i-node who wrote (1013)	1/20/2003 12:47:06 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7936

let me just say there is no difference between a Libertarian and a Liberal that is an extraordinarly silly remark. One might as well say there is no difference between a conservative and a facist. In fact, that is probably closer to accurate than your statement, though I don't believe either one of them.

To: i-node who wrote (1013)	1/20/2003 4:01:03 PM
From: MSI	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7936

We'll have to take it point-by-point You said: "Lay was not the largest contributor to Bush" You'll have to argue with the Washington Post, and determine how their numbers are somehow wrong. Good luck: washingtonpost.com "In his 1994 gubernatorial race, just as in his run for the presidency, Bush received more campaign cash from Lay than from any other donor." And Lobby Watch - tpj.org Although neither one of them advertises it now, Bush and Texans for Lawsuit Reform (TLR) both count Ken Lay among their top donors. You said:"...Bush, a man of proven integrity...Ashcroft, another man of absolute, undeniable integrity" A variety of sources make a career out of collecting untruths that are posted in the mainstream media, of both Bush and Ashcroft. These are long lists - you'll say they are "partisan", and there is no doubt about that -- the question is whether after reading the voluminous details they are correct : bushwatch.net skirsch.com "Was Bush Telling Us the Truth?" You said, "The entire context was one of concern over concentration of business in the hands of a few weatlthy families" Wrong - it was the consolidation and disregard for democracy - JP Morgan wasn't a family, it was a series of businesses among people unrelated by family ties, fwiw. You said: "I find liberalism to be the source of [almost] all evil" That would be an interesting debate, if the definition were supplied by an independent source. As it is, the definitions keep change to suit the accusing party, making it worthless. I.e., "utopian idealism", who said anything about that? In fact, what does that mean to anybody? There is an underlying principle of "potential for improvement" of the political and human condition worthy of debate, if that's what you are somehow referring to. That's what the Constitution is founded on, that the governed can provide informed consent on governance -- something never done before, and a definite improvement of the human condition. That, however, is currently at serious risk. Neither you nor I matter in the slightest to those who push forward the all-powerful central gov't plans to occupy even greater than it's current 40% of the GDP, worldwide aggression and resulting domestic terrorism. Since you've read Theo Rex, let me recommend "Dependent on DC",by C. Twight, for a shocker -- detailing how dishonesty in gov't is absolutely pervasive at the highest levels, and the irresistable tendency are policies to make all Americans dependent on Washington, in every way possible. The growing lack of integrity since TR is at its height today, which is a surprise to trusting people such as yourself. I'd like to hear your reaction if you get a chance to read it.