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: Peter Dierks who wrote (213497)	12/17/2004 12:08:44 AM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576246

What the hell do you think Roe vs Wade is? The SC determined that the Constitution gives women the right to an abortion. The states were required to pass legislation permitting abortion in order to be in compliance with the Constitution. Again, its what the courts do! Its a form of our democracy that really rattles the right's cages! What is in The Constitution is important to our country. It is not up to a single government employee to invent new Constitutional duties for them self. The Constitution has mechanisms for changing the law. Did you criticize the President and his staff for taking a position that illegal combatants could be locked up in Guantanimo, and then to try to avoid the civilian courts review? We know you did. So, if the courts do the legislatures job it is ok, but if the President does the courts job it is bad. I am not laughing at that hypocrisy. Huh? You're mixing everything up. You yourself said its up to the courts to interpret the laws. That's not what Bush did at Guantanamo. He violated a treaty to which the US is a party. The US is a signatory on the Geneva Conventions. We are supposed to follow the provisions of the Conventions in a time of war. Bush did not follow those provisions at Guantanamo. Whether Wilson was partisan or not, exposing his wife was wrong......and illegal. Your understanding of the law does not conform to the interpretation that is being enforced by the same judiciary you claim exonerates Democrats. Where is the arrest? If Joe was using his appointment for political purposes and he lied about how he got the appointment, then exposing the politically charged lies was not illegal. Again, where are the arrests? Dang! His wife is a CIA operative. It is against the law to disclose her identity. Risking repeating myself. It is also important that Joe had lied about his wife not being involved in his appointment. Joe also lied about when he knew about the falsified documents. Can you spell PARTISAN? We can smell partisan. Huh? You need to go back and check your facts.