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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JohnM who wrote (2968)	7/1/2003 7:11:32 AM
From: unclewest	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793887

You don't care about the issues of affirmative action, gay rights, prescription drugs, etc. It isn't that I don't care..it is that I believe we have more important issues to fight for and about. The demos continue to make much noise...but the only fights they want to really engage in right now are for low ground. Winning the battles of sodomy and reverse discrimination may be something for them to gloat over, but I see no significant value to preserving our way of life from either. Both are intended as changes. America has done pretty well without them. I believe the demos choose these fights because they believe one should only fight battles you can win. Well congrats you won one...or make it two. So what would you have us do now...insist that teachers teach our kids that sodomy is OK because the Supremes and your local demos made it legal. Is your university going to show sodomy movies in sex education classes? Are the kids in your neighborhood sodomizing each other yet? That is the talk around here. First the demos gave us public blowjobs (At least that is not sex, right?)...now they gave us sodomy...What will the democratic party give us next... S&M? Me and my kids and grandkids can hardly wait. The talk around our kitchen table has been about musical instrumemnts, birds and fishing so far this summer...We needed sodomy to liven things up. If these are the important battles the demos want to fight and win, good luck at the polls. dragged by an ideological vision, not a practical, how do you stop terror vision. And we are going to be stuck with this one for a very long time. Not good at all. I agree...and all of our military leaders agree with you on that last point. The projection is that this war is going to last 20 or more years and more importantly >>>the outcome is still in doubt<<<. But John, we did not start it. It came to us, remember...and our history is to conduct our military battles overseas whenever possible. I have real bad news for you. This war is not just about Afghani and Iraq...We have American soldiers at war against terror in the Phillippines and Columbia too...Those two conflicts are building as I type. Lesser, yet equally significant war activity continues in Africa and Southeast Asia and it too will need to be expanded. N Korea, Iraq and Syria are also out there to be dealt with. John, if you think you have a bitch now...hold onto your hat because this war hasn't started good. Two weeks ago, I heard 3-star General Brown speak At Carlisle. He sees this as a WW. This war is still accelerating, and there is no end in sight. Someone likes Brown's views. a few days ago Brown was nominated for appointment to the grade of 4-star general with assignment as commander, US Special Operations Command, MacDill Air Force Base, Fla. We all know you are opposed to the war in Iraq. So be it. You have made the point and I accept that...but at least recognize that you have a minority view...You might want to take a good look at that...and not brush the rest of us off like lint. We may not be as foolish as you think. In WWII we attacked across North Africa, Greece, Italy and most of Western Europe because the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. Was that mistake too? We are in a similar situation today. The problem has grown way beyond the single entity of Osama bin late. Most see that clearly...some don't. The clearest vision and the best writers are those who have detailed knowledge of both sides. "Study your enemy" may be advice you need to hear. Arguing a fixed point from a single point of view is a lost cause if you are a minority viewpoint. That is true even if you win the argument. The demo's hot topics of cancelling tax reductions, sodomy rights, and reverse discrimination are battles you may win...but holding low ground makes you extremely vulnerable to counterattack. Expect that...and realize some of the counter-attackers may be demos. unclewest

To: JohnM who wrote (2968)	7/1/2003 7:31:52 AM
From: unclewest	Respond to of 793887

Agenda: bankrupt the federal government so the social welfare programs can be gutted, the ones which have helped alleviate poverty for the elderly; reallocate tax dollars to the rich who have been getting richer through the 90s; not help the states which are desparately underfunded and in need of assistance; provide no assistance for public education; forget the needs of the inner cities; and on and on and on. Do all demos need handouts all the time...Are any ever taught to stand up and take responsibility for themselves?

To: JohnM who wrote (2968)	7/1/2003 1:03:45 PM
From: greenspirit	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793887

res- bankrupt the federal government so the social welfare programs can be gutted, the ones which have helped alleviate poverty for the elderly; reallocate tax dollars to the rich who have been getting richer through the 90s; not help the states which are desperately under funded and in need of assistance; provide no assistance for public education; forget the needs of the inner cities; and on and on and on. John, I tried the other day in our conversation to let the issue drop, because I saw such a tremendous ideological difference between us. But, I just have to comment on this line of thinking now... Your general assumptions seems to be that America was in poor shape until the great social programs were enacted, blossomed, and then saved us all. My question to you is, how have you come to such a conclusion? What is this assumption based on? A few questions? How much have we spent to alleviate poverty in the U.S in the past 40 years? Now ask yourself, what do we have to show for those trillions? Now imagine for a moment, could another approach have worked better? Social security, as some of us warned long ago, faced total disaster in 1983. The system stood on the brink of bankruptcy. The only thing which save it was a massive tax increase. In truth, we really didn't save it, we just pushed-off to another generation the more difficult decisions of how to keep it viable long term. The myth is that some kind of trust fund exists. The truth is, it doesn't. Politicians of all stripes have been using the money in a kind of ponzi scheme since its inception. Medicare and Medicaid are in serious trouble as well. The system is collapsing on the weight of costs which are spiraling out of control. In order to sustain them, we will have to saddle the young with massive tax increases. Not such a problem if you're retired and looking to turn 65 I suppose. I for one, would like to see my children grow up in nation where they don't have to pay taxes for 6 months of the year in order for me to run around in an RV free of private insurance challenges. TORT reform would go along way toward management costs. However, the left is deep in the pockets of lawyer lobby groups fighting tooth and nail against reform. The bottom line is these programs have been massive failures given the fact that other solutions were much more likely to succeed long term. The problem with your analysis is it doesn't seem to have learned from the lessons of history. I can imagine someone 40 or 50 years ago believing large social programs were the best route to achieve social objectives. But, we have learned a lot in 40 years. We've learned that often there are better answers, which are more like a bridge between capitalism and socialism. 401K's were a bridge of this sort. A bridge, which far better protects the individual than Social Security ever has, a bridge which also built wealth at a much more rapid rate. Recently, my stepfather passed away. A great man who worked all his life. Do you think any of his Social Security money passed to my mother after he died? Not a drop of it. He worked his entire life putting into the system, and now his wife, my mother won't see a penny of it. You call that a successful system which works? I call it government-mandated theft. Thank goodness he was smart enough to have private life insurance. If a pension plan from one of the fortune 500 companies were set up the same way, the left would be screaming bloody murder to put the management team behind bars. Since it's a government system, the assumption from the left is everyone involved is some kind of altruistic caring person. Saddling people into poverty, dependent on the government for meager sustenance isn't caring for someone. Freeing them, by setting up a system where they can achieve real wealth, is what caring is all about. That's the big ideological gap between right and left. Tip O’Neil once said America was great because of its social programs. I say, America is great because creative people have been largely free of the shackles of government interventionism. Imagine for a moment if we had enacted 401K's instead of social security? Imagine if the government had set-up the system so that you could invest a percentage of your money in a private fund. Imagine how much our economy would have benefited had the money been used in the private sector, instead of seeing so much of it go down a waste-hole into a huge bureaucratic nest? Just imagine...