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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: beach_bum who wrote (210859)	11/6/2004 4:10:58 AM
From: Tenchusatsu	Respond to of 1571927

Beach Bum, But how would you justify an investment in growing a tree, that takes years to grow and minutes to bring it down ? Ask Weyerhaeuser and Willamette Industries. Tenchusatsu

To: beach_bum who wrote (210859)	11/6/2004 10:03:43 AM
From: brian1501	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1571927

Are you just defending the word "marriage" here ? If we pick another word called "xyz" and give exactly same priviledges like tax break, insurance coverage to "xyz" as "marriage", is that alright with you ? What specifically are the gays/lesbians destroying, that is not already broken in a marriage with 50% divorce rate ? It's more than a word. Marriage for all of us "reds" is something provided by God for a man and a woman. Most couple's vows include God as a central theme. They are pledging themselves to each other before GOD. Two gay guys can shack up, and I'm fine with giving them the same benefits (if you must), but they can never be married. It's not possible, and it would further erode the institution. BTW, there is a big difference between "supporting partial-birth abortion" and "choice of partial-birth abortion". Agreed, but you have to draw the line somewhere. If the baby is that far along, just have it and put it up for adoption. The practice is barbaric, and getting rid of it in no way effects a woman's "right" to choose, just the timing of her choice. Brian

To: beach_bum who wrote (210859)	11/6/2004 4:44:31 PM
From: Joe Btfsplk	Respond to of 1571927

Re "investment in growing a tree." Further to Ten's remarks, I'm a WA refugee. Until about six years ago, I'd frequently tromp around on Weyerhauser property. They'd be re-seeding concurrent with the clean-up immediately after a cut. You might get a 10k from PCL and learn something about how the private market spontaneously shepherds a long term investment.

To: beach_bum who wrote (210859)	11/8/2004 7:24:35 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 1571927

Are you just defending the word "marriage" here ? If we pick another word called "xyz" and give exactly same privileges like tax break, insurance coverage to "xyz" as "marriage", is that alright with you ? If a state wants to recognize such "xyz" (usually called civil unions") and its legislature passes a law to do so and that law is signed by the governor (or his veto is overridden) then I don't have that much of a problem with it. It doesn't possible create some complications for other states and on a national level but I think those could be sorted out. In particular I don't have a problem with it if contentious social issues in general are decided by the states, rather than a situation where such issues are decided on a national level when the national political and judicial climate favors the liberals and on a state level where the climate does not favor the liberals. BTW, there is a big difference between "supporting partial-birth abortion" and "choice of partial-birth abortion". Endangering womens health is one extreme and casual disregard in another. There may be some middle ground here, like you suggested. If you support the "choice of partial-birth abortion" you will find it pretty hard to find common ground with even a person that vaguely leans to the pro-life side. If there really was any solid middle ground (and I'm not sure there is) it would include things like banning partial birth abortions and probably late term abortions in general. Alternatively the middle ground could be to leave it up to the states because the constitution does not explicitly grant any power related to abortion, or anything related to abortion, to the federal government and the 10th amendment says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people" Tim