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.

Pastimes : Clown-Free Zone... sorry, no clowns allowed -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: SBerglowe who wrote (39580)	11/21/2000 7:53:16 AM
From: KeepItSimple	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 436258

>A woman's body is a woman's body and unfortunately Bush's political agenda >is to have control over women's bodies. But that same woman has control over the father's body. Even if he doesnt want a child, he can be forced by the state to fork over his salary to support it. Where does her control over his body come from? The idea that they somehow jointly own the baby, and he needs to support his half? But if she wants to abort it, it is 100% her property/her body and he has no say in the matter. Just like the 21 yr old drinking laws for people who can vote and be drafted at 18, this one smacks of a bit of hypocrisy and double standards..

To: SBerglowe who wrote (39580)	11/21/2000 9:37:27 AM
From: pater tenebrarum	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 436258

Susan, that i can fully understand...i would be against anyone overturning Roe vs. Wade as well. and i'm not talking about the decision George Washington had to make when crossing the Delaware...-g- however, i don't think Bush would actually move to do this. while he, like other Republican top politicians, had to make some conciliatory noises to appease the more radical elements in his party, i doubt he will stand for their agenda if elected. that's as if one were to expect Gore to roll back all trade agreements because the unions are breathing down his neck - not likely to happen either. still, i do sympathize with your motivation... regarding the electoral college, that is something that needs to be carefully pondered. it seems antiquated, but it assures that the smaller states don't fall off politicians radar screens completely. i'm not sure if simply abolishing it would be the proper course...haven't thought about it much yet though.

To: SBerglowe who wrote (39580)	11/21/2000 10:35:50 AM
From: flatsville	Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 436258

Sue-- I find it fascinating when Conservative/Traditional/Republican (and/or) males pound the table for tough love and personal responsibility and then squeal like stuck pigs when the law or society tries to apply the same rigorous standards (that they'd so enthusiastically impose on others) to them in the form of child support and enforcement when they do not pay. And yet many of these same people claim they want smaller government...just small enough to fit under our bedroom doors...? The disconnect is astonishing.

To: SBerglowe who wrote (39580)	11/21/2000 1:01:39 PM
From: yard_man	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 436258

Do you have any kids? When did they become individuals or human beings? Only when they were separated from your body? May not be popular to say so -- but men and women both have a choice that comes much earlier, except in some very limited circumstances. Many shun responsibility for one reason or another -- if a man shuns his and refuses to support a child he has fathered, should the child conceived pay for that wrong with his/her life -- I am glad that many mothers don't think this way ... I saw my son come into this world. He was a human being before he cried his first tear. But the root of the problem is that because we wield power of beginning and ending life -- somehow we are fooled into thinking we are its Author. Yet we did notmake ourselves -- Obviously not everyone can accept this. Would I force "my" "morality" on someone else? I have the right to vote and just as I support penalties for stealing, lying under oath -- certainly a part of "my" "morality" -- I will always use my vote to protect those who have no voice. Who is more helpless than a child, yet unborn? Oh that all the feminist activists were really pro-choice -- if fact many are pro-abortion -- encouraging young women who are pregnant to end the life of their babies -- because it will "be too hard" -- "how will you get an eduction?" -- "what kind of life can you give that child" -- All selfish lies told by those who really want nothing more than to end life ...

To: SBerglowe who wrote (39580)	11/23/2000 9:44:11 AM
From: Mama Bear	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 436258

"One of the results of this election may be the introduction of legislation to abolish the electoral college. " It would have to be done by Constitutional Amendment, not legislation. It would require ratification by 38 states. In reality, you're going to have to find a few states that have low population and are willing to put all the political power in the hands of those who live in urban centers. I doubt you're going to find enough small states that are going to volutarily disenfranchise themselves because of a six sigma event. Also, I really find it hard to find it significant that Mr. Gore 'won' the popular vote by a margin of less than 2/10 of 1% of eligible voters. i find it much more significant that Mr. Bush won the popular vote in 29 of 50 states (30 of 51 if he carries FL). Regards, Barb