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 : The Obama - Clinton Disaster -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Gersh Avery who wrote (51670)	6/23/2011 2:56:42 PM
From: Cage Rattler	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 103300

Agreed -- that's how it should be. All sane adults should be responsible for the results of the choices they make throughout life. I think we probably agree vis-a-vis alcohol and pot -- alcoholics, like hard-drug users, are almost invariably obnoxious and aggressive and have a gift for destroying not only their lives but the lives of close family members and associates. IMHO a drunk = a hard-drug addict. Totally worthless until actually sober.

To: Gersh Avery who wrote (51670)	6/23/2011 3:46:14 PM
From: John	1 Recommendation Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 103300

I'm not supposed to be able to force my morality on someone else. Yet that's exactly what happens. Until all property owners have the full right to permit or deny admission based on their personal standards, we don't really have freedom. We have only the government's version of freedom, which is not freedom at all. I can protect myself from your choices. If that choice puts me in danger. Is it safer to walk through the children's petting zoo or through the lion's cage? Is it safer to drive 120 mph while drunk or 65 mph while sober? Is it safer to live in an area that is 95 percent Black or 95 percent White? You really can't protect yourself as well as you think. Why? Because life is an exercise in risk management and the government has ensured that the barriers required to increase one's safety have been removed. The list goes on and on. Every choice we make is an exercise in risk management. When the government says that booze and marijuana are legal, and it forces me to drive on the same roads as drunks and druggies, I'm not safe. Likewise, if the government forces me to sell or lease property to Blacks, it places my White tenants and home buyers at far greater risk or violent crime, and me at far greater risk of sustaining a loss in value of my property. If a Black business owner wants to say, "No Whites allowed," he should have that right. The concept is called freedom. If we're going to have freedom, and I think we should, let's extend it to all personal freedoms, including the freedom of choice and the right to discriminate based on personal standards. In other words, if you want to get high and drive around, fine, but give me the right to build a community where you are not allowed to enter. Likewise, you should have the right to build a community where only your kind is allowed, if you so choose. Understand?