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 : A US National Health Care System? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: zonder who wrote (457)	2/3/2005 12:56:58 PM
From: fresc	Respond to of 42652

Some good points made by Zonder :) The Canadian Gov. is in the process of decriminalizing small amounts of pot. Thats about it. No other changes for the near future. I agree they should altogether legalize it and tax it. Good points also with Gay Marriage. I would add that if gay marriage was not recognized, the pair would not be able to get proper insurance of any kind. They could not acquire family benefits, etc. cheers

To: zonder who wrote (457)	2/3/2005 3:47:48 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 42652

OT I have not followed your posts on the subject. And sorry, but I do find marriage to the person you want to be a right, and its restriction a stifling of freedom - not only on social and legal aspects based on equality, but also the right to happiness, to be able to choose one's partner in life. Whether or not you accept marriage to be a right, I suppose you would agree that this means homosexual Canadians are more free to do what they want without hurting anyone else than their American counterparts Getting married isn't as much doing something as it is having a relationship recognized by the government. Homosexuals in both the US and Canada can have ceremonies can call each other their spouses, husbands, wives ect., can live together, have sex and so on. The difference is in Canada the government calls it a marriage and in the US the government does not. There is no issue of freedom involved, in both cases they are free. Arguably it could be considered a matter of fair treatment, or of "equal treatment under the law", but it isn't an issue of freedom. If you want to debate this or would like me to expand on the idea I suggest we take it elsewhere. It is not only off topic but it is a potentially big topic, not a momentary digression. "In 2003, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York ordered Padilla freed unless the government charged him with a crime. The U.S. Supreme Court, without ruling on the merits of the case, decided the circuit court had no jurisdiction and the case was refiled in South Carolina." The Supreme Court didn't say "the government can hold him with out showing evidence of a crime". The court said that the petition to release him was submitted in the wrong circuit. Its not a case where the court has said the government can hold people whenever they want but rather a case that is held up by legal maneuvering. But this also has nothing to do with health care, or even my initial digression from the main topic into how higher taxes reduce freedom. Also any counter-examples I might bring up about how Canada limits freedom would also be off topic. I could suggest several other threads or we could take this to PM. Tim