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: i-node who wrote (958875)	8/24/2016 12:52:25 PM
From: bentway	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1576162

I'm curious Dave. Even if Dr. Evil were giving money to the Clinton Foundation, and 85% of that money went to provide good to needy people around the world ( as certified by Charitywatch - 75% is their average ), why is it bad? Doesn't the foundation take that evil money and convert it to good works? How would it profit Dr. Evil? Because he could call Hillary? Well worth it, I'd say!

To: i-node who wrote (958875)	8/24/2016 1:54:09 PM
From: combjelly	2 Recommendations Recommended By Alex MG bentway Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576162

Always. That's the problem with the Left. You guys always conclude the end justifies the means, and therefore laws mean nothing, ethics mean nothing, all that matters is what you want. There goes that projection thingy again. No one practices "the end justifies the means" like the Right. It is their motto. Don't like abortion? Which is a legitimate position. Can't restrict it through legal means? Well then, pass restrictive legislation over concern for "women's health". Despite the fact that abortion is an incredibly safe procedure with virtually zero complications. And then, cut back on support for pregnant women so that maternal mortality doubles over a few years like in Texas. Yeah, really concerned over women's health there... But wait, there is more! Conservatives yammer about principle all the time. So who do they choose for their presidential candidate? Someone who has no clear principles, Donald Trump. Someone who has come out against most of the principles that conservatives allegedly hold dear, like a smaller government. And alleged conservatives, like yourself, fully support him for president because he is your only hope to win this election cycle. Or, concerned about winning elections? Then do like North Carolina. Study the voting habits of the various demographic groups in the state. Choose the groups that trend Democratic. And then pass measures that target those and only those groups. When challenged in court because the groups targeted tend to be minorities, defend yourself by saying that you were just trying to suppress Democratic voters and thus are not racist. Or the legislators in Pennsylvania who justify their attempts to suppress voters by claiming "Democrats would do it to us". Because the ends, winning elections, justifies then means, literally everything but having minorities and other Democratic leaning demographics shot... The list is very much longer than what is detailed here. The Right routinely does whatever necessary to achieve its ends. If it involves greatly increasing the mortality rate for certain demographics, who cares? If it costs lots of tax payer money for nothing but a symbolic show? No big deal. If it crashes the economy and damages the future of a large number of people? Not a problem. Does it involve starting unnecessary wars? Hey, it is a volunteer force.