THE BATTLE OF THE BILLS (Clinton vs. Gates)

You make some points worth considering. But I take exception at your statement
(regarding Jim Fawcette's editorial): "I'm all for capitalism but in an
industry where the BEST product rarely wins, your quote about the suit protecting
'badly run software companies' just doesn't make sense. A company with a
monopoly, lots of cash and powerful marketing will consistently run circles
around any competitive products, regardless of whether they are better."

Did it ever occur to you that Microsoft has lots of cash BECAUSE they are
well-run company and produce the best products? No one can achieve what
is called a "monopoly" without having something on the ball.

I guess what strikes me is the subtle pointers to a belief system built upon
the faulty Socialist indoctrination of the "haves vs the have-nots."

There is no thing as "economic equality." Never has been. Never will be.
The Constitution never mentions it; it only warrants the guarantee to PURSUE
economic prosperity. Whether or not you achieve it is not the credit or
blame to those who HAVE made it.

The only economic equality that can ever be realized is complete and utter
poverty. Just look at any Marxist Regime (other than our own). No one wants
to live there.

The liberty that comes from economic prosperity demands a competitive marketplace.
Although some will achieve higher levels of success (just like some are
better looking than others), the value is not placed on what level you achieve,
but that you are participating FREELY in the market, to buy/sell/own IF YOU
CHOOSE TO. That's the point.

Okay, so Microsoft has had mind-boggling success. Why is that necessarily
because they took something from someone else? I don't necessarily buy that.

Someone else's gain is NOT necessarily someone's loss. In an age where America
has pressed a multi-trillion dollar industry (the semi-conductor) out of
the sands of the desert of California, how can we continue to buy the Socialist
lies that the economic pie is only "so big."

We can, if we wanted, go out and bake our OWN pie like the semi-conductor
and software manufacturers did. But too many of us choose to whine, roll-over,
and pee on ourselves like puppy dogs.

If this were truly about what is good for our economy and the citizens ("comrades"?)
who live under it, we would be hearing much more about how the current wealth
is a direct result of competitive practices the dominate the technology landscape.
It is a fierce and killingly competitive world, as we all know.

Take, for example, the same liberal establishment in Hollywood that supports
so many of these Socialist and Marxist-minded politicians currently entrenched
in our once-free land. They are the same ones who hypocritically run Hollywood
with ruthless abandon to principle, distribution rights, and boxoffice justice.
Just try squeezing an independent film into the lineup of a major theatrical
chain and watch the Hollywood legal mob squash you like a bug.

Yet the Clintonistas refuse to go after the hucksters. Why? Because they're
a source of much-cherished campaign MONEY (gee, there's that dirty word again...
hmmm... Isn't if funny how, to a Socialist, it's okay to obtain money in
ANY FASHION--even illegally [read "treason with China"]--EXCEPT via free
market competition? Seems to a Socialist politician that if they cannot
CONTROL it, they want to destroy it. OOPS! Sounds MONOPOLISTIC to me.
But that's OKAY--because now it's the Socialist politicians doing it ....

If Microsoft never existed, do you seriously believe that some OTHER corporation
would not have arisen to play the precise same leadership role that Microsoft

Why penalize success? Why discourage the very source of our economic status?
If Big Brother Bill (Clinton)'s Self-Righteous Posse is allowed to get involved
and kill Mr. Bill (Gates'), or anyone else who poses a threat to Big Bill's
(and those of his ilk) stranglehold of power over our once-free land, there
will not be independence and financial freedom that literally millions have
obtained through the success of the Microsofts and Suns and *.coms. These
now-successful people and the millions they employ and empower economically
would then be dependent on the government for their sustenance. Which is
exactly the Marxists' vision for all of us in this country--and world.

"Robert Radina" <> wrote:
>Sounds as if Jim thinks everything coming out of Redmond deserves to win

>the marketplace. Sure, Microsoft has stumbled despite its huge success

>without the monopoly it enjoys, wouldn't things like Open/GL win out over
>DirectX? Isn't GLIDE better? What about the lowly Palm? It's winning

>how long before Microsoft eventually gets CE and their pocket PC right and
>owns yet another market?
>I'm all for capitalism but in an industry where the BEST product rarely

>your quote about the suit protecting "badly run software companies" just
>doesn't make sense.
>A company with a monopoly, lots of cash and powerful marketing will consistently
>run circles around any competitive products, regardless of whether they