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: E. T. who wrote (569480)	4/27/2004 1:47:45 PM
From: Rainy_Day_Woman	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

the whole point of a drivers license is to identify the driver as the person who was licensed and knows the laws/rules of the road or anybody of the same sex could use a valid license not issued to them the purpose is for identification she can opt to follow her religion or drive - driving is not a necessity - the decision is hers I think it's a frivolous lawsuit btw, wouldn't a veil hamper her view/ peripheral vision?

To: E. T. who wrote (569480)	4/27/2004 2:59:14 PM
From: Bald Eagle	Respond to of 769670

Wearing a different kind of head gear and wearing a veil that stops you from being identified are two totally different things.

To: E. T. who wrote (569480)	4/27/2004 3:06:49 PM
From: Ryan Plovie (Hijacked)	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

What if my religion says I should carry a sub-machine gun? Or, what if it says I shouldn't respect your man-made laws? Should my right to practice my religion supercede our laws? From an argumentative point of view, the way the Constitution is written, the answer is yes. What if a religious group begins advocating sex with children? That's why I say there should be limits to what we tolerate. Tolerance of one thing results in opening up a whole Pandora's box of things you will find extremely objectionable. By then it will be too late.