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 : Right Wing Extremist Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DMaA who wrote (2047)	1/16/2001 1:53:28 PM
From: CVJ	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 59480

Looks like the left wing kooks have their next candidate for Mayor of San Francisco; Stuart Bell of Clark County, NV. Geez, where does it end? What garbage. I bet if he was nominated by GWB for A.G., the lib press and pundits would appoint him by acclamation; the Senate would not even have to vote. Chas

To: DMaA who wrote (2047)	1/16/2001 3:49:49 PM
From: PROLIFE	Respond to of 59480

DMA, Well I am listening to Ashcroft's opening statement, and when he said the LAW would be followed, no IFS, ANDS, or BUTS...(and then I swear he glared right at Kennedy) and said PERIOD so far GREAT!!

To: DMaA who wrote (2047)	1/16/2001 4:51:06 PM
From: Rambi	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 59480

DMA, THe problem seems to be the way the laws are written. The age of consent in Nevada is 16. Prosecutors said they had to grapple with the fact that Nevada's law on soliciting a minor to engage in the infamous crime against nature makes it a felony to engage in homosexual sex with anyone under the age of 18, but the state's age of consent is 16. Do they mean the age of consent for everyone is 16 and they were saying that soliciting minors for sex is ONLY wrong under 18 for homosexual solicitation? The way it seems to be written now is confusing and seems to discriminate. Does this mean it's fine to solicit a female age 16 to engage in sex? WHy wouldn't this be as wrong as soliciting a male? Shouldn't it be both or none? By the way, I'm not arguing FOR this piece of slime detective, just for consistent laws. I want my daughter as protected as my son.