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: combjelly who wrote (224665)	3/17/2005 5:17:08 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572361

"And just for the record, environmentalists aka blue voters do put their money where their mouth is." Environmentalists are not the typical blue voter either. You have their equivalent on the red voter side, just typically not in the environmental movement. Not that you won't find any. Your cousin is typical of most of the red or blue voters, activism isn't something they are going to be involved in until an issue hits them right between the eyes. It all depends on how the issue is packaged. That isn't entirely true. Up here, people are much more active when it comes to the environment. About every three months, the Sierra Club and WIPRG send people around door to door soliciting money. If people don't give money, they plant trees or do river bank cleanups or clear the Sound of stray fishing nets etc. I would say that people here are much more proactive than your comments would suggest. Real or not, blue voters believe its one of the differences that distinguish us from the red voters. ANWR could be packaged in such a way that appeals to the typical voter out there. I did a little research after I wrote that post, and the current spread between light, sweet crude and heavy, sour crude is more like 20-30% than 10%. So it should be even more clear that this is a gift to shareholders of those companies and not to the average American. And that is exploitable. Just like Bush's stance on Social Security. It would be so easy to paint him as an elitist and only looking out for his buddies if someone is willing to take the chance. But the Dims don't have anyone with the guts... CJ, no offense but why do you keep looking to the Dems to do something? Most of Bush's policies are hurting the entire country in one form or another and not just the Dems.......if not the loss of lives in a ridiculous Iraqi war then there is the cutting of taxes that cause a ballooning in the deficit to the growth of expensive pork to our growing isolation in the world community to the damage done to the environment. Why are Americans sitting back and letting it happen? That's who's the fall guy here......not the Dems. This country is pretty ripe for a true Populist to take the stage. It would help break down the barriers between the red and the blue voters that exist now. But I don't see it happening. I wonder why not. I think because something very fundamental is going wrong. ted

To: combjelly who wrote (224665)	3/18/2005 4:09:49 AM
From: Joe NYC	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572361

combjelly, ANWR could be packaged in such a way that appeals to the typical voter out there. Does everything have to be part of a political baseball (even baseball)? If the oil is there, and the economy needs oil to run, it is obvious that the oil will be drilled sooner or later. The only question is sooner or later. My thinking on the subject when it came up the first time (4 years ago?) was that we should not drill, because the price of oil was too cheap. Let's buy when it is cheap, sell when it is expensive. Since then the price of oil went up, making it more attractive. I think the point is to optimize the timing to get the most $$$s out of it, which also means that this oil would be available when it the most desirable. We may not be there yet. My WAG is that maybe in 2010 - 2015 may be a good time to bring it to market, since if there is no major shock to the system, the growing world economy will gobble up ever increasing quantities of oil, raising prices much higher than they are now. And, the alternatives for mass quantities of energy will not yet be commercially viable and available. And that is exploitable. Just like Bush's stance on Social Security. Yes, very exploitable as Dems have demagogued the issue for decades to death. There is inevitable political element to this, since privatized Social Security would liberate people from being wards of the state, vassals of the Dem Party. But what is more important IMO is what is good for the country. Is 100% pay as you go system superior to a combination of pay as you go and capitalized system? I don't think you will find a lot of clear thinking people to say it is. I think most of the Dems are already knowingly doing something that is bad for the country for a partisan advantage. You seem dissatisfied that they are not doing more. This country is pretty ripe for a true Populist to take the stage. It would help break down the barriers between the red and the blue voters that exist now. But I don't see it happening. It seems that the party you are envisioning would break up the coalition that is holding the blue majorities in the remaining blue states. Joe