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: Srexley who wrote (590793)	7/14/2004 8:08:57 PM
From: Johannes Pilch	Respond to of 769670

'm not black, but I am sure you know they are taking offense at dishonest comparisons like this. To claim that changing the definition of marriage is equivelent to insuring our gauranteed rights to blacks is ridiculous. ha! Very good point. And by it we see Steven is just pushing more of the ugly dishonor that is inherent to the left.

To: Srexley who wrote (590793)	7/14/2004 9:17:37 PM
From: Steve Dietrich	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

<<How is it attacking you to point out that calling one poll "many" polls is attacking you?>> Would i be attacking you to point out your question doesn't make any sense? Besides you lie. I never called one poll many polls. I said there were many and you asked me to show you one. So i showed you one. Do you have anything besides these stupid dishonest cheap-shots? <<To claim that changing the definition of marriage is equivelent to insuring our gauranteed rights to blacks is ridiculous.>> What are you talking about? A black man had the same right as a white man: to marry someone of his own race. Where's the discrimination? It was just as illegal for whites to intermarry as it was for blacks. This wasn't about race, it was about changing the definition of marriage to include interracial marriage. (Are you really so stupid, or are you just being dishonest?) Here's what the first judge in the Loving V. Virginal case said about it: "Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix." Stupid man, common idea: marriage wasn't meant to be between races. It wasn't until 1967 that we changed the definition of marriage to include interracial marriage. <<See how many gay people (which they are free to be with no restrictions)>> Again, stupidity or dishonesty? Who else can serve in the military only if the they "don't tell" anyone about their sexuality? Isn't that a restriction? Steve Dietrich