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: Kevin Rose who wrote (238837)	3/16/2002 11:49:30 PM
From: the_wheel	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 769670

I have asked this over and over. I know you know the answer. Please do not be embarrassed and just tell me the one word answer!! PLEASE!! I asked others they said stuff that does not make sense to me. I know there is simple explanation. I just too dumb to understand. All I want to know is this : SF Examiner (slight left of center paper) ask question: How is it different now from like it was like six months ago? What is the difference? Well, the answer 81% respondents online poll small sample(I am not dumb) was that the big difference now is: 'Our freedoms are in danger' or 'Threat to our individual freedom' or something along this vein of talk. The thing is (I know I am admitting my ignorance here but I really like to know what are they talking about?) : What does this mean? Can you just translate it into plain English? Like ONEWORD or TWO? They are not talking about smoking? are they?

To: Kevin Rose who wrote (238837)	3/16/2002 11:52:26 PM
From: Selectric II	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Your vitriolic hyperbole has little resemblance to what he posted. Chill, dude.

To: Kevin Rose who wrote (238837)	3/17/2002 12:21:00 AM
From: craig crawford	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 769670

>> what should be the rights of those who do not agree that a woman's main responsibility is to bear children? Or that homosexuality is wicked? Or that leveling the playing field is discrimination? << that is too broad a question. >> as long as you do not thrust your idea of morality onto others. THAT is the point. << that is a ridiculous point. anyone with a political agenda seeks to impose their version of morality. it is accepted in our country that society has a right to impose its version of morality. you telling me i don't have a right to impose morality is actually an example of you wishing to impose your idea of morality on me. so you see, it is disingenuous for people to say that you can't legislate morality or somehow it's not right for society to impose morality on others. our society has decided that murder is unlawful, so society locks up andrea yates. right there society made a moral judgement regarding her behavior. society "thrust their ideas of morality" on her by locking her up. >> So, social progress is defined as moving from a narrow point of view where a few people's ideas of morality and justice gives way to a diverse view that is more representative of the population << nowhere in your definition do i see any qualifications regarding right or wrong. i suppose in nazi germany at first a few people had ideas of exterminating jews and others, and eventually that gave way to a more diverse view which was more representative of the population. so i guess according to your definition the growing acceptance of the nazi agenda is social progress.

To: Kevin Rose who wrote (238837)	3/18/2002 10:54:23 PM
From: Sidney Reilly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

OK, I see you were born several generations too late. However, for the sake of argument, what should be the rights of those who do not agree that a woman's main responsibility is to bear children? Or that homosexuality is wicked? Or that leveling the playing field is discrimination? There rights should be the same as mine. Not enhanced above the rights I have. If a homosexual is assaulted because they are gay they have the right to protection and the assaulter should be charged for the crime. But to raise the the level of prosecution to "hate crime" because the victim is homosexual gives him more protection under the law than I have. If someone assaults me it's a given it's a hate crime. He didn't assault me because he loves me. But I have no right to prosecute my assailant for a hate crime as well as assault. How you lead your life is one thing. If you hold these beliefs, and practice them in peace, more power to you, as long as you do not thrust your idea of morality onto others. THAT is the point. The free world is an exchange of ideas and beliefs. Get over it. Star complaining when my knights force you to kneel and accept my beliefs or be separated from your head. In effect the liberals are doing just that through the courts. Trying to muzzle conservatives through gag orders and eradicating any demonstration of Christian beliefs from public life through the courts misuse of there power. So, social progress is defined as moving from a narrow point of view where a few people's ideas of morality and justice gives way to a diverse view that is more representative of the population. I understand that if you were one of the few with a monopolistic view of what is right, and lost that monopoly, you would not see it as progress. The truth is that when Christianity dominated this country it was because that WAS what most believed. It WAS the majority view, and it still is. But a comparatively few have taken control of the courts and waged a war against those beliefs. They are trying to ram THEIR beliefs down our throats through the courts and a systematic campaign of dis-information in the public school system. You are mistaken about what this country is supposed to be about. It's started as a republic, not a democracy. In a republic the rights of the individual outweigh the rights of the state. But our constitution has been interpreted to mean something different than what was originally intended to serve the purposes of a very few Godless liberal thinkers.