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: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (54524)	6/28/1999 4:54:00 PM
From: DMaA	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

The focus should be not in getting prayer or anything else into the schools but to get government out. Parents alone should be able to decide what their children are taught. Not bureaucrats, pandering politicians, or even the Supreme Court judges. Prayer, 10 Commandments, book banning, all are diluting energies that should be expended toward solving the real problem.

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (54524)	6/28/1999 5:18:00 PM
From: jlallen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

Pro life women like Mother Theresa who can't make it in this world? We could use a few more Mother Theresas and a few less Harrises. JLA

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (54524)	6/28/1999 6:06:00 PM
From: truedog	Respond to of 67261

to: Michelle Harris from: truedog Re: Christian right Unfortunately there exists a radical Christian right wing which consistently embarrasses the Faith-based Christians. Please do not lump all Christians into one pile. We do not condone the bombing of clinics, the sniper killing of doctors, or any such radical and, I might add, anti-Christian behavior. Actually, I consider anyone who would do such things is not really a Christian at all. Nothing in the Bible really condones such behavior unless desperate people take certain passages out of context. Regards, truedog

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (54524)	6/28/1999 6:23:00 PM
From: Ish	Respond to of 67261

<<I am primarily against assault weapons and "gun-show" loopholes for gun sales. >> You have to define assault weapons. Most of them have been banned already and large magazines are a no no. Some would call a cap and ball muzzle loader an assault weapon. As for the "gun show" loophole you agree with the NRA. Again, you agree with the NRA. They are asking for the instant check that was threatened.

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (54524)	6/28/1999 6:24:00 PM
From: Tom Clarke	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

Prayer in school would be bad if led by a teacher. Who would these intellectually non-descript teachers have the kids pray to? Gaia? Pan? Yes, keep prayer out of public schools. The answer is to smash the public education system, but I won't hold my breath waiting for that. As for litmus tests, why is the right not allowed to have one? The left brags about their litmus tests. Economic turmoil if Roe was overturned? I doubt it. We would have a greater respect for human life, which would mean no more Columbines. Abortion teaches these kids that life has no value.

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (54524)	6/28/1999 6:31:00 PM
From: jlallen	Respond to of 67261

Another felony conviction of Clinton crony Hubbell. Message 10305567

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (54524)	6/28/1999 8:59:00 PM
From: Johannes Pilch	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

>Well Charles I am willing to compromise on those as I have said many times here. I am also willing to compromise on guns, btw...< Well Michelle this really is quite insignificant in that you do not represent the population of leftists who are unwilling to compromise. >I am primarily against assault weapons and "gun-show" loopholes for gun sales. However the problem is the christian right is NOT willing to compromise on much now are they?< I am primarily against murdering children on demand, but can compromise in cases of rape, incest and where the mother's life is physically threatened. However the problem is the unchristian wrong is NOT willing to compromise on much now are they? >The 10 commandments in schools... does that sound like a rational agenda issue to anybody here?< It does to me, particularly if the school in question exists within a community of people the majority of which aspire to those laws. The Founding Fathers thought them very suitable for our country, and so have Americans for nearly the last two centuries. These 10 commandments have, until fairly recent times, generally existed in our schools, our courts and our halls of power. And they did well by the country. Now today you ridicule them, and this is to be expected from a lonely California womyn. But great American men and women have always done their best to live by and teach them to their children. >How much time did the right waste on this issue? How about prayer in school... is this something the US needs to waste endless debate on?< It really depends on one's perspective. To a godless California womyn the mere mention of sound morality and common decency will seem a waste. On the other hand to a decent person allowing a community to teach its children (as it once did) that there exists something greater than they to which they will have to give an account, is not a waste at all. To such people fighting to allow their children to pray in school is a very important issue. They use their rights as Americans to try and retrieve the lost right to allow their children to pray in schools. And godless folk today use their right as Americans to try and ensure children will not pray in school. There is no waste here. It's democracy. >What about the morning after pill which is intended to destroy a bunch of cells after conception. You are going to have a really hard time convincing me that is a life.< Well Michelle we'd have a really hard time convincing you of a lot of things. Your reasoning ability certainly makes no commentary on reality. You are a bunch of cells, Michelle, some would say you are nothing but a bunch of cells. >"Litmus test" for supreme court judges with an agenda to overturn roe v wade? Well now that sounds like a bunch of extremism to me.< Well of course it does. Anyone who has no compunction about openly supporting the murder of children will indeed view overturning Roe as extremism. Such people no longer have consciences, and so instead of seeing the obvious –that killing other humans is truly an extraordinarily extreme act of barbarism, they instead think attempting to stop such barbarism is extreme. They are too gutless and heartless to suffer the consequences of their own actions and struggle above any ensuing adversity. They'd rather just kill the baby and try vainly to forget it. But they cannot forget-- because they know deep down they actually murdered a living human being, no matter what they tell themselves. >I can just imagine what would happen to this country if roe v wade is ever overturned.... some sort of economic turmoil I would imagine... < Thanks for this sublime analysis. When Roe is overturned life will go on and a better country will emerge as a result. The moral authority rests with our side of this issue. Simply put, we are right and you are wrong. You folk support the systematic murdering of innocent people. We do not. It is exactly as simple as that. >do you right wingers really think that some 30 year old VP of a fortune 500 company is going to just step away from her career in the case of an accidental pregnancy?< If she has decency and a brain, she will always conclude that murdering an innocent human just to keep a friggin' job is about the most barbaric thing a person can do. That is the principle driving all decisions. If she has guts and courage her having a child will not keep her from professional development if this is what she wants. She will work to discover a way to develop professionally and nurture her child if her profession is that important to her. The last thing she would do is murder her child. Such a thing is not good. It is not a gray issue. It is pure evil. >If you took a poll of the IQ's and incomes of the pro-choice women vs. the pro-lifers here is what you will find - pro-choice IQ on average 30-40 points higher,< Sure. These same pro-choice womyn actually support killing their own children. They can't be that smart. The pro-life women have brains enough to know killing children is plain barbaric. I confidently place my bet on the pro-life woman. She is smarter, has more courage and decency. Were I forced to place my life in the hands of a woman, and were I given the choice between two women, one pro-life and the other “pro-choice,” I would not hesitate to trust the pro-life woman. She is smarter by far than the pro-choicer, can see farther into the future than the pro-choicer, has more integrity than the pro-choicer and has much more courage than the pro-choicer. Choosing to trust her over the pro-choicer is simply the most reasonable decision. >…pro-choice income double or more the pro-lifers.< Perhaps, but pro-lifers do not kill children so as to make their money. It is likely the case pro-lifers sleep better at night and are generally happier than pro-choicers. Michelle, are you happy? >Pro-life women are a bunch of dummies that yearn for the 50s because they can't make it in today's world. Flame away! Thats the way it is.< Well Michelle. You give these particularly emotional outbursts about the same time each month, between times screeching incessantly in vain denial of the fact that the woman who embraces her femininity is by far superior to any womyn. You have only a few more years Michelle, then hope will be gone forever for you. Actually I am not sure if you have even a few more years. Tell the folks at Glamour Shots to do a better job next time. (grin)

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (54524)	6/29/1999 10:44:00 AM
From: Andy Thomas	Respond to of 67261

>>do you right wingers really think that some 30 year old VP of a fortune 500 company is going to just step away from her career in the case of an accidental pregnancy? << Why was she having sex with a man whose child she did not want? That seems sleazy - or at the very least an indicator of "low self-esteem" on the woman's part - to me. There's much more in your post which could be argued with but there's not enough time. FWIW Andy