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: Lane3 who wrote (85395)	11/10/2004 6:42:08 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793820

That looks like a good start to me. I'm not sure it's sufficiently comprehensive in that I don't know that I could derive a position on immigration or Taiwan or the price of medicine from it. It works as a statement of where you're coming from. It doesn't offer any basis for why anyone else should adopt it. If that is the correct synthesis, its also pretty vague even on the areas that it does cover. "Embrace wisdom from a variety of sources not just Judeo-Christian tradition." doesn't really say much, "do no harm" says even less. "-Light touch with regard to rules." That doesn't seem to be the standard position of the Democratic party. (or even the Republicans for that matter even if they might have a slightly lighter touch). "-Help those who simply can't help themselves via taxation of the rich." The Republicans support that as well, but if you propose cutting back just a bit on it or even oppose a large increase in how much you "help those who simply can't help themselves via taxation of the rich" you get painted as someone who doesn't care about children and wants to stick the elderly on the street or perhaps in concentration camps. Also most social spending doesn't go to "those who simply can't help themselves". Mary - Was Karen's post an accurate reflection of your thoughts? IF so can you also reply to the above points? Tim