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 : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ann Corrigan who wrote (497)	11/20/2004 6:21:22 PM
From: cirrus	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224648

Ah... thank you for bringing me back to reality. I thought for a second the focus might have shifted to issues rather than labels. Let me give you an example: You really think that guns kill people. Not people kill people. Of course people kill people, not guns. So what does that question mean? That everyone should have the right to carry a concealed handgun in New York City? That every village idiot is free to buy a gun because background checks are in violation of the constitution? Does the "right to bear arms" include anti-aircraft guns? Anti-tank weapons? Explosives? Applying "liberal" or "conservative"labels to sticky issues such as gun control is divisive, not an attempt to build a reasonable, logical consensus on the issues.

To: Ann Corrigan who wrote (497)	11/21/2004 8:25:12 AM
From: lorne	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224648

Ann. So take a guess which members voted against the resolution? House Condemns Criticism of Boy Scouts By JIM ABRAMS Associated Press Writer November 20, 2004, 11:31 AM EST newsday.com WASHINGTON -- The House on Saturday commended the Boy Scouts and condemned legal efforts to limit government ties to the group because of its requirement that members believe in God. A nonbinding resolution, passed by a 391-3 vote, recognized the 3.2 million-member Boy Scouts for its public service efforts. But the main thrust of the debate was what the House Judiciary Committee chairman, Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., said were the "strident legal attacks" on the group. The Pentagon agreed last week to tell U.S. military bases around the world not to directly sponsor Boy Scout troops. The warning resulted from legal challenges to government relations with a group that bans openly gay leaders and compels members to swear an oath of duty to God. The American Civil Liberties Union and others say that direct government sponsorship of such a program amounts to discrimination. The Pentagon's ruling does not prevent service members from leading Boy Scout troops on their own time. Also, Boy Scouts still can meet on areas of military bases where civilian organizations are allowed to hold events. Rep. J.D. Hayworth, R-Ariz. said the ACLU's challenge was a "nuisance lawsuit" and he was urging Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld to reconsider the Pentagon's position. "Scouting values, military values, citizenship values, a respect and reverence for a creator are not a violation of the doctrine of church and state," said Hayworth, who was an Eagle Scout. The measure's sponsor, Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., said Congress would work "to defend the Boy Scout's ability to continue the fine work that they have done for nearly a century." Voting against the resolution were Democratic Reps. John Dingell of Michigan, Barney Frank of Massachusetts and Lynn Woolsey of California. * __ On the Net: Information on the bill, H.Res. 853, can be found at thomas.loc.gov