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 : Moderate Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TigerPaw who wrote (11831)	6/27/2004 1:01:33 PM
From: cosmicforce	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 20773

I'm very disappointed in the people who did this, whatever their motivation, because it was against Americans by Americans. As I told my friend, I still feel obligated by my oath I took in 1979 to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same." Whom do you tell when the enemies of the Constitution reside in Government, giving unlawful orders and performing unlawful and unconstitutional acts? You tell the People. If Fahrenheit 9/11 phenomenon says anything, it is that millions of people are willing to drop a pretty big wad of cash to hear what they should be hearing from the Fifth Estate, but aren't.

To: TigerPaw who wrote (11831)	6/28/2004 5:36:53 AM
From: GUSTAVE JAEGER	Respond to of 20773

REASON * November 1998 Invitation to a Stoning Getting cozy with theocrats By Walter Olson For connoisseurs of surrealism on the American right, it's hard to beat an exchange that appeared about a decade ago in the Heritage Foundation magazine Policy Review. It started when two associates of the Rev. Jerry Falwell wrote an article which criticized Christian Reconstructionism, the influential movement led by theologian Rousas John (R.J.) Rushdoony, for advocating positions that even they as committed fundamentalists found "scary." Among Reconstructionism's highlights, the article cited support for laws "mandating the death penalty for homosexuals and drunkards." The Rev. Rushdoony fired off a letter to the editor complaining that the article had got his followers' views all wrong: They didn't intend to put drunkards to death. Ah, yes, accuracy does count. In a world run by Rushdoony followers, sots would escape capital punishment--which would make them happy exceptions indeed. Those who would face execution include not only gays but a very long list of others: blasphemers, heretics, apostate Christians, people who cursed or struck their parents, females guilty of "unchastity before marriage," "incorrigible" juvenile delinquents, adulterers, and (probably) telephone psychics. And that's to say nothing of murderers and those guilty of raping married women or "betrothed virgins." Adulterers, among others, might meet their doom by being publicly stoned--a rather abrupt way for the Clinton presidency to end. [snip] reason.com