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 : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ann Corrigan who wrote (132575)	5/14/2012 3:22:12 PM
From: Jorj X Mckie	3 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224729

No one is more tolerant than me of those nature has presented with a challenge in life. Gays are entitled to choose their lifestyle, they are not entitled to force the entire restructure of the human race on everyone else in order to enhance their personal situation. I'd prefer gutter language be outlawed, does that mean I have the right to use every deceptive method possible to get my way and force all Americans to broaden their vocabulary by replacing crude words with more civilized communication? When life hands you a lemon, you find a way to make lemonade - not make your entire reason for being the imposition of your wishes on everyone else. I'm sure this will be an unpopular opinion here, but philosophically gay marriage is an issue. If our constitution says that we are all equal under the law. And if our laws allow some citizens to enter into special legal partnerships, but excludes others, Then our laws are clearly being discriminatory. There are two paths to resolution for our government: 1. Allow gay marriage (and the inevitable slippery slope to polygamous marriages) or 2. Get out of the marriage business altogether and stick to legal partnerships. Let marriage be the domain of the church. That being said, I could really give a rat's ass about the whole gay marriage issue. I think it is a distraction from the real issues and I am really really happy that Obama chose to come out publicly in support of it. And I really love the Newsweek cover. He didn't gain one vote by declaring his support, but he did lose a whole heck of a lot of votes by doing it.

To: Ann Corrigan who wrote (132575)	5/15/2012 5:51:33 PM
From: CF Rebel	3 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224729

One of the biggest problems with liberals (it's a long list) is their selective tolerance of others. Compare their tolerance of gays and their lack of tolerance for religious people, especially Christians. Whenever possible, libs try to portray any conservative candidate for president as a religious zealot who would somehow......well, they won't tell us what he'd do except have Roe vs. Wade overturned (that will happen someday no matter who's in office). I'm an atheist and I could care less about the religion of a president excepting a muslim. Truth to tell, this country did much better under men who felt the weight of their religion, had the trait of humility and respected the office for which they were elected. Libs have wrongly ascribed some presidents' historical decisions as being religion-driven - because they could and because they sought to smear them. Liberals need to get over their lack of tolerance for the religious. Religion has been a big part of this country's structure and re-writing history and bad-mouthing the religious won't change that. CF Rebel