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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mr. Whist who wrote (201039)	11/7/2001 6:17:19 PM
From: rich4eagle	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

Repugs as in Ashcroft have also dictated that states don't have the right to allow people to "die with dignity" as they have told Oregon the Fed is in control here! I thought the Demolibs were the big govt guys?

To: Mr. Whist who wrote (201039)	11/7/2001 6:48:40 PM
From: Srexley	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

You are proving my point flapjack. The person I was responding to implied you can't have it both ways, and I pointed out that you can. Is your position that if you adopt a state's right position that nothing can be more important? If a state voted for murder to be legal for instance it sounds like you would think the repubs would have to support that. Seems like a stupid argument to me.

To: Mr. Whist who wrote (201039)	11/8/2001 8:17:12 AM
From: jlallen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

I know this is difficult for your feeble mind to understand but rights which are specifically enumerated and guaranteed by the Constitution (2nd Amendment) are inviolable, whereas, rights discerned by activist judges in the "penumbras" of the Constitution (abortion) tend to be more debatable. Republicans believe in local control (state rights)for those powers not given to the federal Government. A very good argument can be made for local control of the abortion issue. JLA