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 : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: RMF who wrote (60458)	12/20/2012 1:27:35 PM
From: Peter Dierks	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

You don't have to worry about Walmart selling any weapons you disapprove of any time soon. Obama's blaming guns for the consequence of Obama pulling police out of schools has caused every assault weapon to be sold across the country. The ones that Dick's is symbolically returning will be sold by other merchants the same day that they arrive. The first step in oppressing citizens is to remove their guns so they can't fight back. Every tyrant in history has followed the path of disarming citizens before showing how tyrannical they are. The point is not that you know when you are getting biased spin. The point is that you don't seem to be exposed to the facts due to your limiting your sources of information to highly biased spinsters. For instance last night when Fox News reported that GM was buying back shares from the government they neglected to mention that the government would be taking a huge haircut. Responsible journalism would have mentioned that. Liberals bias that information out of the "news". Here is the highly misleading headline from the Daily Kook website: "Treasury wins big on GM bailout" The loss is mentioned, but minimized and actually claimed without logically justifying as a gain in the print (web) story. "I've told you for years that I'm fiscally conservative. I HATE deficits." And that is where we have found common ground. I don't hat deficits per se. I do think that over a small number of years, say four or five that the net should not be a deficit. The government would be much better managed if it could not borrow. Many states have that prohibition. It forces some work arounds. For instance I know of one state that forces the locality it constructs buildings in to borrow in the state's stead. The state pays the bonds but technically has not borrowed. How would that work when the feds built? I am confident that a suitable solution could be found.