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 : Foreign Policy Discussion Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DayTraderKidd who wrote (7930)	12/26/2006 4:31:29 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 15987

Not supporting gay marriage is there business. When they try to legislate it, then it becomes hostile. The recognition of a marriage is inherently political, and in a representative republic its something that is legislated. Its not directly or intrinsically hostile. Top military brass in the pentagon professing there believe in christ in anyway while in military uniform is hostile to our constitution and separation of church and state No it is not. The constitution says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". A general professing belief is neither congress making a law (or even even a regulatory decision or a use of the general's command authority), nor is it establishment of religion. You can argue about how appropriate the comment was, but it was not hostile to, against, or in violation of the constitution. Legislating stem cell research is hostile to the scientific community and the country as a whole. You write as if stem cell research was banned. Deciding not to fund something isn't an aggressive or hostile act. Nor is it a radical one. You can argue, if you want, that its misguided or unwise, but "evil" or "hostile" are hardly the same as "unwise". Dude, I can tell ya nothing good comes from radicalization. Radical doesn't automatically mean wrong. Sometimes radical changes are a good thing, but if you really want to blast anything radical you would have to argue against your own points, as you are supporting radical change. During this past Christmas season of joy to the world, Rep. Virgil Goode (R-VA) sent out his holiday letter to supporters, condemning the election of Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN), solely for Mr. Ellison's religious beliefs. I don't know the details. Assuming your characterization is accurate, that doesn't seem to be appropriate (depending on exactly what the religious beliefs were, but somehow I doubt they are/were so extreme as to make the comment appropriate, if your statement about it is correct). OTOH (again depending on the exact details) I don't think I'd actually call Goode's statement evil. Perhaps this a discussion that should take place on another thread, its OT, and not just a short aside.