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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Steve Lokness who wrote (70027)	6/1/2008 4:02:52 PM
From: Bearcatbob	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541348

Steve - when you post stuff like the below it makes me understand why I did not get the joke. I now think you deliberately distort messages for effect. Am I wrong? "It's like those pushing oil saying our only problem is we should be drilling for more oil. Well sure, but by drilling for more oil you once again set our country back rather than addressing the problem of a finite resource. " Let's analyze the above. Only problem is not drilling for oil? I absolutely defy you to find any person who says that. You making a statement like that makes me seriously question how you think and your motives. Only not wanting to be banned limits my characterization of such tactics. Can you even grasp the concept of transition? Do you have any concept of the time it takes to make a transition? Can you even grasp the impact on national balance of payments by importing more oil? What is your objective - a train wreck to force change?

To: Steve Lokness who wrote (70027)	6/1/2008 4:11:20 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541348

Of course that sets us up for failure. Only if you define "failure" in the terms specified by the catastrophe crowd. If you look at "failure" the way, say, an economist would, you would get a different result. So, your "of course" is not valid. Problems that are not met head on but delayed become bigger problems. Indeed, but only if you know for sure what the problem is and how to solve it. If you're wrong about that, you might not come out ahead. Look, for example, at the way Bush "solved" the terrorism problem. Had he delayed a bit, analyzed different approaches some more, that problem would not have been so "solved."