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 : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: MulhollandDrive who wrote (15981)	11/25/1998 2:35:00 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

I agree. Very slippery. I think perhaps those who are already born and can't take care of themselves deserve some sort of care- but not very much- unless their families choose to care for them. I think unwanted animals should be destroyed, and although I think people are animals I cannot advocate the destruction of unwanted people because one never knows when oneself or someone one holds dear might be unwanted. But that is the only reason I don't advocate it. That said I think the unwanted should work for their keep if they are able. I think they have no "right" to the charity of the state and it is bestowed on them because they are failures. I have no problem with the unwanted offing themselves (ala Soylent Green- perhaps it should be encouraged? But I refuse to eat anything made out of people for aesthetic reasons and because I do not want to get that disease cannibal's get)