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.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Ensco International Inc. (ESV) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Douglas V. Fant who wrote (1101)	4/18/1998 11:42:00 AM
From: Chuzzlewit	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 2005

Doug, I'd like to counter your incorrect claims re: Clinton with some facts. The Clintons have been very large donors to charity, and this is part of a continuing pattern. See this news article for details in this past year. dailynews.yahoo.com Your comments regarding Dick Armey and Al Gore are similarly twisted. This country is premised on the notion of freedom of religion, which also implies freedom from religion. The fact that considerable money was raised in Buddhist temples should not be the issue. Nor should Gore's religious beliefs be the issue. I am not a Christian, and I am certain that many other posters on SI are not Christians. And I for one find the notion that Christians have some monopoly on virtue repugnant. The fact that considerable soft money was raised should be the focus. Do you remember the last presidential race in which Bob Dole refused to admit that cigarette smoking caused cancer? Mr Dole was, of course, a major recipient of soft money from the tobacco companies. Unfortunately, the political system we live under fosters this kind of fund raising, and both political parties feed at the trough. There is a bipartisan bill in the House -- the McCain-Feingold Bill, which was designed to put an end to soft money financing of campaigns. Unfortunately, the House Republican leadership (consisting in part of Mssrs. Armey and Gingrich) decided to kill the bill because too many House Republicans were expected to defect. So they attached a virulently anti-union rider to the bill to ensure that many Democrats would not voit for the bill. So much for the issue of Mr. Armey and "soft money". Dick Armey took his flat tax road show into this area a few months ago, extolling the joys of tax simplification. What he didn't tell the audience, but emerged only later, was that buried in his numbers were severe spending cuts -- cuts in programs that benefited mainly lower income people. This fact emerged only during questioning. The spending cuts created the illusion that a simplified tax system would benefit all Americans. I would have and entirely different view of Mr. Armey had he argued fairly on this issue. The fact that he didn't relegates him to the ranks of hack politicians. Please think carefully about the points I raised. TTFN, CTC