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: carranza2 who wrote (139624)	9/20/2005 5:05:33 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 794392

I'm really surprised that you don't see it, but I do detect a whiff of peevishness in your argument, so perhaps you are purposefully ignoring it. There seems to be an underlying assumption in some circles that it is a given that NO be restored to status quo ante and that the feds take that on as a priority because that's where the deep pockets are. I am simply challenging that either of those is a given. I'm not arguing that NO shouldn't be restored or that people shouldn't live there. I'm questioning those two givens. If I seem peevish, perhaps that comes from the difficulty of trying to get people to step back from their givens. I find this very much like trying to debate the anti-globalists and their set of givens. People who start from "givens" usually do so either because they make assumptions or because they have no arguments to support their givens so they throw them out there as a bluff hoping they will remain unquestioned. I have heard no arguments that justify what some consider the givens in this case. Change happens. Migrations are nothing new to this country. There are a few things government does best such as national defense, public infrastructure, disaster relief, etc., or do want to privatize them, too? No, I don't want to privatize them. I just don't want to further nationalize risk, nostalgia, and compassion.