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: bentway who wrote (639611)	12/18/2011 3:29:47 PM
From: longnshort	1 Recommendation Respond to of 1583809

yeah and what's wrong with selling pot from your house, or pimping young boys to old homos from your house

To: bentway who wrote (639611)	12/18/2011 3:50:03 PM
From: i-node	Respond to of 1583809

It kills me to do it, but I agree with Frank -- not only on the marijuana issue, but the other personal choice issues that the Republicans are intent on controlling, and when I listened to the ABC show this morning I thought the responses to Barney's remarks were totally weak. I do believe a lot of Rs are hypocrites on these issues, just as Ds are on other issues (and many on these as well). If a person cannot see at this point what the situation is on marijuana as a gateway drug, he simply isn't looking. It isn't. It is a gateway drug only because it is illegal, and its illegality is killing American kids by the thousands. At this point, in my mind anyone who doesn't support legalization is just being stupid about it. The same is true of the ban on Internet gambling. It is none of government's f*cking business (and I'm saying that not just because the ban has cost me in excess of a half million in lost income over the last five years, but because it is none of government's business). Barney Frank is obviously right that Congress should have no role in a person's personal sexual preferences. That is not to say, however, that we should redefine the terminology for "marriage" after it has had an accepted meaning for centuries (this is a merely technical objection, however -- the unintended legal consequences of such an action could be substantial). I'm not really aware of Congress getting too involved in "what we read", so I have no comment on that. I would be pleased if they would just read their own legislation. There is a lot of hypocrisy on both sides. I think this kind of nonsense has a lot to do with the support for Ron Paul, and were he not such a nutjob I'd probably be there, too.