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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Booms, Busts, and Recoveries -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Raymond Duray who wrote (48057)	4/6/2004 12:03:54 AM
From: energyplay	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74559

What's your take on Michael Savage ?

To: Raymond Duray who wrote (48057)	4/6/2004 1:16:03 AM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74559

Interesting Ray. Thanks for pointing out Smedley. Smedley had his finger on the pulse. It's a fascinating thing how cults work their wonder on us all. [Well, not me - QUALCOMM isn't a cult]. Here is a key sentence which may have passed you by. <War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses. > Concentrated benefits and diffuse costs are the driving impetus of governments, whether democratic or dictatorship. Not just in war, but in the normal course of business. In dictatorships, such as Dostum's Afghanistan [he is remarkably similar to Saddam and the USA is a keen supporter - ironic], Saddam's Iraq, Stalin's proletarian USSR or Mao's Maelstrom, it's pretty clear who gets to enjoy the benefits of government. In democracy, the process is a vote buying one. While $10 million is nothing to the electorate, being lost in umpty $billion budgets, it's a LOT of money to a small group or lucky individual. People won't vote against the government because somebody else gets 1c from each taxpayer, but they will vote against it if they don't get a cut and they will vote for it if they are promised a cut. My father's cousin, Ormond Burton, dnzb.govt.nz had a similar conversion as Smedley, after being decorated in WWI for doing a great job, but served time in prison in NZ [a land of the free] during WWII while my father spent 4 years fighting Hitler [he volunteered as Hitler "had to be stopped"] to ensure freedom. Now, in the defence of "freedom", the USA is developing conscription systems, "just in case they are needed". Talk about Alice in Wonderland, 1984's Big Brother etc!! To be free we must take you hostage and force you into the army to kill and be killed. What's wrong with capitalism, freedom, free will etc, where the taxpayers would pay the going rate for volunteers to serve in military services and those disposed to accept such a job do so on a voluntary basis? So much for freedom and the hypocritical USA 'values'. As Smedley says, it's a racket. If taxpayers aren't prepared to pay the going rate, they don't deserve to be defended. If they increase the pay rate, they'll get volunteers. Mqurice