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 : Mainstream Politics and Economics -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (32927)	11/1/2012 9:24:58 AM
From: longnshort	2 Recommendations Respond to of 85487

"You don't think about this stuff much do you?" koan think ? lololol if it's not talking points he has nothing and he can't even back up his talking points. Talk about mind numbed robots

To: Brumar89 who wrote (32927)	11/1/2012 12:16:03 PM
From: koan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 85487

North Dakota has a small population. But what difference does the population make? The size of the population is irrelevant. What about California? Every state should have a permanent fund linked to finite natural resources, IMO. <<You don't think about this stuff much do you? AK has a massive amount of state land and a tiny population. TX's land is mostly privately owned and the state is #2 in population. BTW, why aren't you asking about CA? They have massive energy reserves too.