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: TimF who wrote (301964)	9/5/2006 7:01:12 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1571044

An empty symbolic gesture that will never become active law. It is not an empty gesture. It is an empty gesture. The people voting for it know that it will never become active law. They don't even universally want it to be active law. They are pandering. It doesn't reflect positively on them, but its not a sign of impending dictatorship. If it was an empty gesture, why not simply pass a resolution or proclamation to that effect?. In fact, that was not their intent.....they wanted a law that could be enforced..........otherwise, they and you would be sending the message that laws are made to be broken and we've had way too much of that crap during the past 6 years. Whenever Bush doesn't like a law that Congress has passed, he signs a signing statement that says he will not support the law. Not exactly. Whenever Bush signs a law that he think unconstitutionally encroaches on his authority as president he makes such a statement. I fault Bush for this practice, because he should veto the law if he thinks its unconstitutional, but these statements are also not a sign of impending dictatorship. By executing those signing statements, he is saying he will not obey the law passed by Congress and will do what he chooses. That's a defiant act that violates the Constitution and it is one of the first steps to possible tyranny. "Neither has been called an unacceptable minority by Bush or by our federal government in general. Neither is subject to the type of actions typically directed by a fascist government against some minorities. Neither has had any new restrictions placed specifically on them by the Bush administration or our current congress that don't apply to the population at large." In terms of gays, the GOP has made attempts that have failed. No they haven't. The GOP has done everything it can to restrict the rights of gays. They have not succeeded because they could not muster the necessary votes. Meanwhile Bush refers to Muslims as fascists and people are starting to use profiling openly. That is treating Muslims differently than the rest of the population. How soon do you think it will be before they are put in holding camps like WW II? For an example, they pressed for a constitutional amendment against gay marriage. The pushed for an amendment to define marriage according to its traditional definition. More importantly such marriages where illegal under Clinton and under every president before him, so they aren't having new restrictions put in place by Bush that don't apply to everyone else. As for Muslims, the man who was wearing the t-shirt and forced to get off the plance was Muslim. He wasn't forced off the plane by order of Bush. More importantly he wasn't forced off the plane because he is Muslim. Of course not......he was forced off the plane because he has black hair and people on that particular flight don't like people with black hair. Makes sense........NOT.