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 : G&K Investing for Curmudgeons -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DownSouth who wrote (9630)	12/18/2000 7:55:51 AM
From: unclewest	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 22706

The very purpose of our defense system is to protect not only our well-being, but our right to protest. If we do not have leaders willing to exercise those rights, those rights will wither. DS, i agree with you in this respect....the military oath requires one to commit to protecting and defending the constitution of the United States. that includes all of our rights and as you point out (though not specifically mentioned) includes the right to protest. that does not mean i have to agree with the protest or its form. in the 60s and early 70s, one form of protest was to spit on soldiers. i got to know the individual, who spat on me after i landed in Seattle, up close and real personal. i would have loved to get to know his leader on such a personal basis too. some burn the flag. i object to that too. these acts of protest, imo, are much different than other forms of protest that were being exercised at the same time...i.e., sitting at a woolworth's lunch counter on elm st. in greensboro, north carolina, or marching to selma. i personally thought both of these protests were appropriate and well within the bounds of constitutional rights and common decency. i saw absolutely no point in jesse calling for a massive protest against the supreme court decision. apparently his constituency agrees with me. the protest never materialized. uw