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.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: cosmicforce who wrote (94141)	1/20/2005 3:29:18 PM
From: one_less	Respond to of 108807

"It's good to know the Commander in Chief is still on the ball, focusing on the things that really matter." There is no question about where your focus is, ta da da Daaaa <<<<<THE AGENDA>>>>> yeeeee hawwww No wonder the country is swinging so far to the conservative platform. Sheeesh

To: cosmicforce who wrote (94141)	1/20/2005 3:31:58 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

I'm kind of glad there were no WMD. I'm just sorry we had to waste a perfectly good war on such a stupid premise.

To: cosmicforce who wrote (94141)	1/20/2005 3:36:55 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

NOW t r u t h o u t \| Programming Note PBS Airdate: Friday January 21, 2005, at 9:00 p.m. on PBS. *Check local listings at pbs.org In America, a staggering one-in-six children born every year have been exposed to mercury levels so high that they are at risk for learning disabilities and cognitive impairment. That type of mercury exposure is caused by eating certain kinds of fish, which contain high levels of the toxin from both natural and man-made sources such as emissions from coal-fired power plants. One government analysis shows that 630,000 children each year are exposed to potentially unsafe mercury levels in the womb. If the government and its scientists know about the mercury problem, why do so many people continue to be poisoned? On Friday, January 21, 2005 at 9 p.m. on PBS (check local listings), NOW's David Brancaccio reports on the dangers of mercury in our food and examines how the government is falling short in protecting consumers. The broadcast includes an interview with environmentalist Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., a senior attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), who is credited with leading the clean-up of the Hudson River. Recently, Kennedy was tested for mercury and learned that his blood level was nearly double the EPA's safe limit. "The environmentalists are dismissed as tree huggers," says Kennedy. "But there's nothing radical about clean air and clean water for our children."

To: cosmicforce who wrote (94141)	1/20/2005 3:38:23 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Re-posted from another thread: (obligatory ionesco disclaimer) Gay politics is a reactive movement. In some cases it is simply the hidden agenda of the left looking for a tear in the fabric of society. In some instances it is also a case of unmet emotional need. The need to feel included or as belonging is one of the most powerful motives in social beings. However, attempting to change definitions of what ‘is’, is a misguided approach to dealing with the truth of what is. Gay marriage is not a ‘societal issue’, it is an attempt to legislate away the distinction between hetero identity and homo identity. Hetero identity is core family values based. The core family value has an historic reference that further defines our identity and culture in the present. The hetero cultural identity defines the future goals and aspirations of the family of the hetero individual and significant others in that person’s life. It also connects social and cultural values of the present to institutions that engender the society of the future. Homosexual identity and culture must be redefined for each era in which the individual identifies. Unlike the heterosexual cultural identity, there is no common progenic reference for what the homosexual individual is likely to accomplish in life or as a reflection of his/her identity roots, at least beyond an individual who may have sexualized him/her in youth. The reactive attempt to define marriage as something other than a heterosexual commitment to life’s endeavor is an attempt to dissemble the culture of heterosexual family values. There are no benefits to heterosexual marriage that can not be enjoyed by homosexuals via a civil union and or contracting. Tax laws and employment benefit laws can be revised to mirror the benefits of marriage as can any other benefits except for the culture that is inherent in heterosexual committed unions and the culture that springs from that.