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 : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: cosmicforce who wrote (1440)	1/18/2001 12:55:05 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Now see how often you wrote the word "same." Do I see a little spark of the potential for consensus in there somewhere? Karen

To: cosmicforce who wrote (1440)	1/18/2001 5:08:51 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 82486

I'll throw in my two sense on each of these issues as well. Abortion - I've all ready had this debate with several people that post here (its part of what got me suspeneded from the LWP) but I am pro-life. Constituionally I can see something in the arguement that it is not the proper role for the federal government to outlaw it. This is because abortion is not mentioned in the constitution so the federal government has no constitutional authority in this area. Gun control- I believe in hitting your target (and chosing what you consider to be a target very carefully) otherwise I am against almost all gun control. I could perhaps support such current restrictions as not allowing felons to have guns. Affirimitive action/anti-discrimination-I am for dealing with someone based on their charecter and abilities rather then their skin color or religion or sex. There are certain obvious exceptions (I don't have a problem with seperate restrooms for men and women for example), but generally I am against breaking people up in to a bunch of racial or religious categories and then making decisions about them based on what category they belong to. I think it should be illegal for government at any level to unjustly discriminate based on these categories. I am against a lot of what is called "affirimitive action", but the terms is used for everything from an effort to be less discriminatory to imposing hard racial quotas. Here is where I am really radical. I do not think racial discrimination by private individuals or companies should be illegal. I would support boycotts and protests against racial bigots who discriminate. I might even take part in them, but I don't think the force of law should be used to make any one assoiate with people they don't like in a private setting. I oppose bigotry but I don't think the government should stomp on bigots who are not abusing others. Sexual Harassment - Very inappropriate in the work place, but I think some times things are taken to far by those who fight against sexual harassment. Sometimes it is very debateable if a certain conduct constituted harrasment. Also I think to much effort is put into pushing companies as being liable when it is the harasser that is really responsible. Its one thing when the harassment is formal policy or even known about and ignored on a wide scale basis by the company, but the company should not be liable if all you have are rare isolated unreported incidents. Drug enforcement - I have been drifting towards supporting legalization for some time. Infact I'd say I'm there finally. Environmental regulation - A healthy environment is an important thing. But regulation is not always the answer and in the many cases where it is it should balance the costs and the benefits, and it should be backed by hard science. There are probably areas where new environmental protections are needed but some of the old regulations should be gotten rid of as to expensive (in money and/or freedom) or because they are insufficantly beneficial. Some environmental regulations have the perverse effect of harming the environment. They don't allow for new ways of doing things so the old polluting ways remain. Any environmental regulation should be clearly and unabiguously backed by empowering legislation. If it is unclear if the law allows for a regulatory agency to regulate in a certain area then there should be no regulation in that area until a law is passed. Defense We need a strong defense. I am in favor of missle deffense as well. The ABM treaty should not be considered an obstical as it allows for either party to withdraw with notice. (It can also be argued that the other party to the treaty no longer exists). Foreign Policy - I believe in standing up for our country and our interests but we must also respect other nations. Immigration - I guess I would say I am for legal immigration. Although I might want to make some changes. I don't think illegal immiigrants should definitly have a right to government services. (But they should not be abused by the government either) Sorry if some of the answers where a bit long for this format. Tim