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.

Strategies & Market Trends : MARKET INDEX TECHNICAL ANALYSIS - MITA -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: J.T. who wrote (18564)	8/29/2004 1:43:12 PM
From: Geoff Altman	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 19219

JT, congratulations on the Barrons thingy. I love that quote about appeasement by WC, he had a way with words..... "But he told Reuters that only about 10 girls were calling the hotline daily -- not a large number if the pro-headscarf lobby wants to make a strong statement at the start of school." Hmmm, doesn't sound like a lot of female type interest lol. Maybe they aren't quite as brainwashed as we think.

To: J.T. who wrote (18564)	8/29/2004 6:09:10 PM
From: yard_man	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 19219

The policy of limiting what people can wear -- whether they can express their religious beliefs through their dress is an simply an issue of freedom. France clearly chose against freedom in the matter. That's all. It's not a matter of appeasement on the part of France that landed those news folk in the hands of the terorrists -- clearly it wasn't. Two things landed them in the hands of the terrorists. One, they were covering the war. Two, they had a government policy that appeared to target muslims. Now in the US we have many confused as to what the founding fathers intended -- clearly they intended that government not encroach upon the free exercise of religious belief -- for those that emigrated to America -- the primary concern was to preclude the government from establishing a state religion -- BECAUSE it would interfere with "free exercise." But in the US, it is not much better than France because the a-religious, humanists, whatever -- these have twisted that around to allow the state the right to preclude many "public expressions or public free exercise."