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: SilentZ who wrote (182619)	2/14/2004 1:20:54 PM
From: i-node	Respond to of 1575341

>> First, I don't think that Gore tried to steal the election. I would say each person is entitled to their opinion on this. However, at 3:30AM when Daly (from a long line of election theifs) walked onto the stage on election night, and said, "The Campaign Continues", it was clear they would attempt to steal it if they couldn't win it legitimately. And while Bush sat back and waited for the counts, the Gore Team began their efforts to manipulate the outcome. As to the recount, if a recount could have been done with any degree of accuracy, I'd have had no problem with it. But it was clear from the outset that it simply wasn't possible to do it with accuracy. You had people trying to manually override a system which had worked adequately for years -- analyzing individual chad as to their dimpled or pregnant status, detached chad all over the place -- it just wasn't feasible to have conducted a recount. Also, there were other election anomalies that would have made it simply impossible to get a reasonable recount -- so stopping it was the only way to insure the election wasn't stolen. (My own opinion is that many liberals will steal an election every time given a chance, but I recognize most don't agree with my view). Second, that's not it at all. The values of the country are just becoming very polarized as limits are pushed by both sides. A couple of examples where the change is coming from the left: 1. Gay Marriage 2. Janet Jackson And a couple from the right: 1. Partial-birth/Late-term abortion ban 2. Supply-side economics 3. Privatization of Social Security The thing is, I think MOST of the country doesn't agree with the Left's position on these examples. Sure, you have the extreme liberal areas like California and Mass. Also, just about everyone agreed about Partial Birth Abortion -- only the extremists didn't. And frankly, if the facts are know about SS, nobody can reasonably oppose a degree of privatization -- it is just the Left's chronic mis-use of SS as a wedge issue that causes the problem. I know -- I blame the Left for everything bad -- and I really do. I believe the Left is the problem, and it would suit me if they were all in California -- hell, I'd even give 'em Vegas to be done with it.

To: SilentZ who wrote (182619)	2/14/2004 2:16:47 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575341

And, of course, the Iraqi war hasn't helped anything either. The thing is, that none of the above items can be argued as absolutes. The issues of abortion, JJ, and gay marriage can only really be argued from a religious standpoint, and to many, that can't hold water. While I personally don't give much credence to the Bush economic policy, I can't completely pooh-pooh it, because, for instance, supply-side economics has only been tried for a limited amount of time in the past -- maybe it can work, I just don't think so. But, when you're in a time like we are now, where large parts of the country are fast becoming more religious while other large parts of the country are quickly secularizing, and we've had some bad times economically and each side has a different way of fixing things, you end up with a very polarized society. That's what I don't understand.......were they always religious but were afraid [until now] to impose their values on the rest of us, or is it a new phenomenon? Does that make any sense at all? It makes sense to me! <g> ted