Politics for Pros- moderated Message Board

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 : Politics for Pros- moderated

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Dayuhan who wrote (28156)	2/6/2004 2:51:40 AM
From: D. Long	Read Replies (1) of 793843

but hardly grounds for the government to intrude on their management of their own lives. The government is not intruding on the management of their lives. They are asking for the State to change contractual regulations to accomodate THEM, while the majority of the population firmly opposes. We don't have any specifically guaranteed right to eat hamburgers, either. That doesn't mean that legislation outlawing the consumption of hamburgers would be constitutional. Why not? What Constitutional violation would that entail, exactly? You can't eat dogs and cats by law in most (if not all) jurisdictions. No "nuance" tonight, Steven? <g> Derek

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next