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: Don Pueblo who wrote (266072)	6/22/2002 10:09:21 AM
From: Mr. Whist	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

Not true. Take the example of abortion. "Pro-lifers" seek to outlaw abortion ... no babies aborted for whatever reason. "Pro-choice" proponents simply want to make abortion an option between a woman and her doctor. Big difference between a ban and an option. The right, much more so than the left, seeks to impose its will on the other side. That's why the right, in my opinion, is much more insidious than the left ever will be. Another reason I changed my party registration from Republican to Democrat four years ago. Although many on the right say they believe in less government, in fact they want a stronger federal government to enforce the cultural mandates of the right. We're seeing a power play right now by Bush to increase the role of the Executive Branch and decrease the role of Congress. Saw same with Nixon 30 years ago.

To: Don Pueblo who wrote (266072)	6/22/2002 12:48:36 PM
From: ManyMoose	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

Not me. I just want people to shut up and leave me alone. Each side of each issue is trying to "impose their will" on the other

To: Don Pueblo who wrote (266072)	6/23/2002 9:30:46 AM
From: TigerPaw	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 769667

impose their will Many of these issues divide over whether will is actually imposed versus whether that is avoided. Take your example gay-marriage. It imposes no will on anyone to allow a marriage. You would have to scrape pretty deep to find a harm or even an effect to any outside the marriage. The marriage is completely voluntary so there is no will imposed in any meaningfull sense. The banning of such a marriage is pretty obviously an imposition on the gay couple. It's all the more egregious because third parties would likely not notice any difference whether the coupe was married or just staying together. Now if people were required to attend the cerimony that would be the imposition of will. TP