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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: unclewest who wrote (17998)	11/28/2003 6:58:47 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793638

You have your father turned around? That makes you feel good, I am sure. Ann Coulter is not up to her best columns with this one, but she gets off a few good lines. Massachusetts Supreme Court Abolishes Capitalism! By Ann Coulter LAST WEEK, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court discovered that the state constitution – written in 1780 – requires the state to allow gay marriages. The court gave the legislature six months to rewrite the law to comply with the heretofore unnoticed gay marriage provision in a 223-year-old constitution, leaving countless gay couples a scant six months to select a silverware pattern. Out of respect for my gay male readers, I'll resist the temptation to characterize this ruling as "shoving gay marriage down our throats." The Massachusetts Constitution was written by John Adams, who was quite religious. It is the most explicitly Christian document since the New Testament, with lots of references to "the great Legislator of the universe." Adams certainly would have been astonished to discover that the constitution he wrote provided for gay marriage – though one can see how a reference to two men marrying might get lost among the minutiae about the common good and "duty of all men in society, publicly and at stated seasons, to worship the Supreme Being, the great Creator and Preserver of the universe." The main lesson from the court's discovery of the hidden gay-marriage clause is that these judges are in the wrong job. If they can find a right to gay marriage in the Massachusetts Constitution – never before detected by any human being – we need to get them looking for Osama bin Laden. These guys can find anything! And if we don't get Massachusetts judges out of the country soon, we could start reading headlines like: Mass. Supreme Court Abolishes Capitalism; Gives Legislature 6 months to Nationalize All Industry. The Democratic presidential candidates reacted with glee to the court's gay-marriage ruling, relieved that they could talk about gay marriage instead of their insane ideas on national defense. But then they realized this meant they would have to talk about gay marriage. Except for the nut candidates who always forget to lie about their positions, all the Democratic presidential candidates earnestly insist that they oppose gay marriage. They are for "civil unions" with all the legal rights of marriage. But not marriage! No sir. As governor of Vermont, Howard Dean actually signed a bill providing for these magical "civil unions." Having already been forgiven for his remarks about the Confederate flag by both of the black people currently living in Vermont, now Dean wants to be the candidate for guys with Confederate flags in their flower shops. But even Dean emphasized that Vermont's civil union law does not legalize gay "marriage." And even in Ben-and-Jerryville, it took a court to force the state to recognize civil unions by discovering that right in the Vermont Constitution. (WHERE'S OSAMA?) The big argument for "civil unions" – but not marriage! – is that gays are denied ordinary civil rights here in the American Taliban. This is where gays usually bring up the argument about all the straight couples living in "sham" marriages, but I see no point in dragging the Clintons into this. The classic formulation was given by John Kerry in the Democratic debate earlier this week: "What we're talking about is somebody's right to be able to visit a loved one in a hospital, somebody's right to be able to pass on property, somebody's right to live equally under the state laws as other people in the country." You would think there were "Straights Only" water fountains, the way Democrats carry on so (as if any gay man would drink non-bottled water). Apparently, health care in this country is better than we've been led to believe if so few Americans have ever been to a hospital that they think there's a guest list. In case you don't know: Gays already can visit loved ones in hospitals. They can also visit neighbors, random acquaintances and total strangers in hospitals – just like everyone else. Gays can also pass on property to whomever they would like, including their cats. Every few years you read about some daft rich widow leaving her entire estate to a cat. It's perfectly legal. You just need to write a will. Liberals have figured out how to get abortions for 13-year-old girls without their parents' permission. But we're supposed to believe that they just can't get their heads around how a gay guy could leave property to his partner. As for "living equally under the state laws as other people in the country," unless Kerry is referring to the precise thing he claims to oppose – gay marriage – gays do live equally under the state laws as other people in the country. There are no special speed-limit laws or trespassing laws or murder laws for gays. There is, however, some evidence of gay profiling with regard to the enforcement of fashion "don'ts." What gays can't do is get married – something all Democrats swear up and down to oppose. Instead, the Democrats demand "civil unions" and then throw out a series of red herrings to explain why. In fact, the only difference between what the Democrats claim to support (civil unions) and what they claim to oppose (gay marriage) is the word "marriage." As John Kerry explained: "I think the term 'marriage' gets in the way of what is really being talked about here." Republicans ought to try that: We don't support "guns" – the term "gun" gets in the way of what is really being talked about here – we want choice in personal security devices. We don't want a "ban" on partial-birth abortions; we just don't want there to be any of them. We don't support "tax cuts"; we support a "union" between people and about 60 to 70 percent of their money. We don't support "war" with Iraq; we are talking about somebody's right to be able to visit a loved one in a hospital. (Huh?) Except the difference is: All those positions are popular with voters, so Republicans don't have to lie. The Democrats' purported opposition to gay marriage is like all their other phony policy statements that are the opposite of what they really believe. When they're running for office, all Democrats claim to support tax cuts (for the middle class), to support gun rights (for hunters) and to "personally oppose" abortion. And then they get into office and vote to raise taxes, ban guns and allow abortions if a girl can't fit into her prom dress. The common wisdom holds that "both parties" have to appeal to the extremes during the primary and then move to the center for the general election. To the contrary, both parties run for office as conservatives. Once they have fooled the voters and are safely in office, Republicans sometimes double-cross the voters. Democrats always do. anncoulter.org

To: unclewest who wrote (17998)	11/28/2003 7:25:59 AM
From: greenspirit	Respond to of 793638

Sounds like you had a great time. Yes, I would have loved listening to the banter back and forth. I've been linking through some Iraqi blogs today and reading back a few days. These blogs are providing us a fascinating window into Iraq. Here is one post I thought you would enjoy. It echo's the "changing of minds" theme you expressed... _______________________________________________________ Facing the demons. Last night I was sitting in the residents cafeteria having tea with some of my colleagues, the Iraqi TV was broadcasting an interview with some officials in the GC and some other independent parties discussing the expected demonstrations against the terrorism in Iraq. Despite the large letters saying(NO TO TERRORISM) showing on the background, non of my colleagues seemed to be listening or paying any attention. I turned to one of my friends and asked him: -will you take part in this demonstrations, he inquired (what demos.?) and when I explained the matter to him, his answer was NO. His excuse was that he didn't want to risk his life, so we indulged into a hardtalk, which attracted the others. I asked them about their opinion one by one, one of them said that he will definitely go, the others refused, and when I asked why, one of them said that it's been organized by the GC which doesn't represent him, others said that it will not make any difference while the rest said that they have nothing to do with it and it's just an old account between the Americans and the terrorists that allied with Saddam and his loyalists. At that time I felt an enormous rage growing inside , as I remembered the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis lying in the mass graves, the coalition soldiers getting killed every day trying to defend both the freedom of their fellow citizens and that of ours. I saw the people of jeorgia who marched in thousands and forced shevardenadze to resign. I remembered all the compassionate and encouraging e-mails and comments sent to me from different people in the world offering their help and showing their support. I couldn't hold myself and shouted in their faces (shame on you) for how long will this carelessness last? For how long will this coward attitude continue? When Saddam was in charge, you had some excuses, but now you have none. The tyrant and his terrible killing machine are defeated, they don't sleep for two nights in one place, haunted by the American hammer, finding no other places than the basements and tunnels to hide in. You are now free, protected by 150,000 of the coalition troops and a similar no. of Iraqi police and new military, yet you're still shaking of fear for just hearing Saddam's name. Yes, there's a great possibility that they will attack this demo., but aren't we risking our lives daily as we go to our work or drive near a government building or near an American or IP patrol. These terrorists are attacking our schools, our police stations, power supply, the red-cross and the UN, most of the time they choose to attack American soldiers as they pass through a crowd of Iraqi people, they plant explosives on our roads hoping that an American vehicle might step on it . Do you think that your submission to them will make you safer? Maybe, but you will never be free. You always put the blame on the Americans and the GC, you'd better blame yourselves for such a negative attitude. The discussion went for about an hour, at the end, 5 of my colleagues (out of 10) were convinced and will take part in the demo. I thanked God saying to myself there's still hope. After that one of my friends (a committed sheie Muslim) asked me gently: does it really grows inside you, this compassion with the USA? I replied, if you mean the government of the USA then let me tell you that governments were made not to earn the love or hate of other people, but to protect it's citizens and serve their interests, which -I think-is exactly what the government of the USA doing. That’s why I respect this gov., however I do find inside me a growing love and gratitude to the American soldiers and citizens who continuously provide their money and efforts and even sacrifice their lives to protect their country, yes-but also for our freedom. Here, my friend said that he agrees with me but asked (do you believe that the American soldiers are here to set you free?) Well, my answer was YES and I don't find it naive to say so, although I don't deny that many of them came out for duty or for some personal benefits, but I still can feel the love of the people and soldiers of the USA to do the best they can for the sake of other's freedom. Here, my friend shook his head not completely convinced. It’s your right not to believe it, for you and I can not easily comprehend it, but these men and women earned their freedom long ago and satisfied all their essential needs and most of the -what's considered luxuries for us- and it's a natural thing that when a human being achieves all of these his soul will rise high and he stands to take a look at other peoples' sufferings with sympathy and may not hesitate to sacrifice for them. Of course not all human beings do that, but only the good. On the other hand, the imprisoned and the tortured who lack the most simple human rights cannot do that and it's totally unfair on our side to ask that from him. It’s like asking a man with cancer to feel sorry for someone with a headache (as this is the case in which most people compare their misfortune to that of the others). At the end, my friend nodded without saying anything, but I felt that he was somewhat convinced. I hope that I’m not being too optimistic here as the hearts and minds of people change frequently and what was said in the night might well be forgotten in the morning. Maybe, this demo. will be a total failure , maybe non of my colleagues will show, but I’m sure of one thing :I’ll be there to face my demons even if I walked alone or with a bunch of determined Iraqi people. iraqthemodel.blogspot.com

To: unclewest who wrote (17998)	11/28/2003 9:55:18 PM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793638

The LT is headed to Okinawa and probable combat duty in the Philippines. Sounds unlikely. There are a few training exercises scheduled here, but they are not in the combat zones (unlike the "training exercises" held in Basilan in 2002). There is no legal way to deploy Americans in combat here, neither is there any real reason to do so. They might possibly send a few advisers out with Philippine units, but those would usually be Special Forces, not Marines. I do hope they aren't planing something stupid....