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: Dayuhan who wrote (5976)	2/16/2001 12:45:28 AM
From: The Philosopher	Respond to of 82486

It's WAY too late to touch that one! But the basic rule of revolutions is this: If you win, they were justified. If you lose, they weren't.

To: Dayuhan who wrote (5976)	2/16/2001 2:39:42 AM
From: E	Respond to of 82486

Possibly it is because it is 2:30 am here, but in that entirely hypothetical example, anyone would say of course they would, you silly! But fortunately, that's just a science fiction scenario, in a world so overpopulated! Oh, maybe you meant rules just forcing American women to give birth against their wills? I'll have to think about that one. At first I had the ludicrous notion that you meant, like, applying a medical gag order denying denying abortion information, and contraception, to third world women in countries in which the terrain is littered with starving orphans and dying parents. It's late. I just hallucinated a nightmare. After I wake up, I'll remember that this is America. There is no American Taliban.

To: Dayuhan who wrote (5976)	2/16/2001 1:11:52 PM
From: Lane3	Respond to of 82486

An amusing hypothetical example that struck me while fetching my daughter. Imagine that a President was elected with a minority of the popular vote, and won the electoral vote only through what the aggrieved group perceived as a judicial coup d'etat. Suppose that this government implemented rules aimed at forcing pregnant women to give birth, which many women see as a direct violation of their right to determine what is done with their bodies. Suppose that this government packed the courts with people of like mind, restricting peaceful redress. Would the aggrieved women be justified in taking up arms against the State? You've been asking the best questions lately. I'm as jealous of them as Win is of my grub. I'm finding myself disappointed, though, that the better your questions, the less likely it is that anyone tries to answer them. Maybe one has to talk trash to evoke responses. Karen

To: Dayuhan who wrote (5976)	2/16/2001 6:33:13 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 82486

An amusing hypothetical example that struck me while fetching my daughter. Imagine that a President was elected with a minority of the popular vote, and won the electoral vote only through what the aggrieved group perceived as a judicial coup d'etat. Bush won the majority of the electoral votes. The state legislature (which has sole constitutional authority in this issue) set a deadline by which votes have to be counted. The FLA SC tried to overturn this. The US SC slaped that down. In any case it appears that when the votes that were supposedly not counted were looked at after the election, many of them don't even have dimples or marks and the total for Bush might actually have gone up more then the total for Gore, if the normal methods for guessing what the voter intended where used. Suppose that this government implemented rules aimed at forcing pregnant women to give birth, which many women see as a direct violation of their right to determine what is done with their bodies. Leaveing aside the merits of each side of the abortion controversy for the moment, the chance that abortion will be outlawed in the US under Bush is about equal to the chance of all life on earth being wiped out by an astroid or large comet hiting the earth during the current administration. Tim