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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: michael97123 who wrote (155530)	1/7/2005 5:29:19 PM
From: neolib	Respond to of 281500

Quite a big difference between errant policies and differing views on things and crashing plannes full of people into buildings full of people. If "X" is going to happen and it will kill "y" people, and it is preventable at a cost of $z, how much difference does it make to you if: 1) "X" is an intentional crime perpetrated by some humans. 2) "X" is a natural calamity with no human intent. 3) "X" is the natural consequences of some non intentional human activity (lack of foresight, negligence, etc) 4) "X" is the consequence of known human activity pursued for other reasons(economics, pleasure)although known to have negative consequences. I make very little distinction between the sources, and please don't argue about potential magnitude as that is taken care of in "y" i.e. equal for all cases. Conservatives go ape over 1) and either ignore or intentional protect the causes of 3,4. On 2) I can't say if there is much lib/consv. difference. and liberals are the ones who own the suvs, would be nice to see some actual data on personal energy consumption of conservatives vs. liberals.