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: tejek who wrote (219636)	2/18/2005 3:40:39 AM
From: Raymond Duray	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1575793

tejek, Re: .this chart may be more appropriate for the English. If you take the time to read about the methodology on the website, you'll discover that the professor who created the Political Compass went to great pains to make a tool that is universal and definitely not country specific. So, Peter is not right, and you're veering dangerously into the realm of being lulled by his ignorance. *** Re: Tony Blair, Schroeder, Kerry and Bush are all on the right above the center line and are clumped near each other. I have to disagree with that assessment. I see considerable difference in their political POVs. Without hearing you out, I have no idea what sort of differences you suggest. When I look at the chart: digitalronin.f2s.com what I see is that there is considerable distance between Gerhard Schoeder and George Bush. Perhaps you'd have a better understanding if you actually studied the methodology that Political Compass uses. It is quite clever, and uncannily accurate. And yes, most major Democratic Party candidates in the U.S. are to the Right of center, in spite of the propaganda spewed by the corporate propagandists at Faux News.

To: tejek who wrote (219636)	2/18/2005 4:38:18 AM
From: Amy J	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1575793

Tejek, "the percentage of children covered by state health-care programs increased to 26.4 percent" post-gazette.com I have to admit, I do not understand why people would have children before they can responsibly take care of them. It's beyond belief if a person has a child before they are able to take care of the child. There are exceptions, like if a person loses their job or experiences some unexpected event, but isn't that different from a person that doesn't even consider the well-being of a child before having one? Don't people consider the impact on their children before taking such a step - it seems selfish when they don't. Maybe I lean too much on the side of responsibility. RE: "some offer it to families of four with incomes as high as $56,550." Why would someone have four children when they can't afford that many? Barring some unexpected event such as a layoff or illness, it's irresponsible and seflish. RE: "About a third of the 45 million uninsured nationwide have a household income of $50,000 or more" I guarantee you that if my income were only $50k, any child of mine would have health insurance. It's irresponsible people don't make other adjustments in their life in order to make darn sure their children have health insurance. Health insurance should be a parent's top priority. Would like to see the Democrats create more programs that encourage responsibility, rather than the current system which encourages a poliferation of children in poverty. (Conversely, would like to see Republicans be more open to such programs.) The current system is broke - we flip between Dems creating programs that don't encourage responsibility and Reps eliminating them. This is what currently happens. I think a better solution is a compromise where a program gets created but it encourages responsibility. For example, the person making $50k but doesn't pay for health insurance should have their paychecks deducted for health care. Period. In many foreign countries, there's no excuse for a worker to not pay for health care because it is taken out of the paycheck whether they like it or not. Regards, Amy J