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: i-node who wrote (706562)	3/30/2013 9:29:27 AM
From: Alighieri	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1578452

CARSON: Well, my thoughts are that marriage is between a man and a woman. It's a well-established, fundamental pillar of society and no group, be they gays, be they NAMBLA, be they people who believe in bestiality. It doesn't matter what they are. They don't get to change the definition. It is a pretty crappy choice of language. If he has political aspirations he'll have to hone up his communication skills or he'll be in Akin-land real quick. You know, as I read and listen to this guy it strikes me that much of what he says (not all as we can see above) has very little specificity and detail. He is a black man who talks to conservatives, but I am seldom sure of what he said when he's done talking. Al

To: i-node who wrote (706562)	3/30/2013 12:19:48 PM
From: Brumar89	1 Recommendation Respond to of 1578452

Sotomayor raised same issue as Carson: JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Mr. Olson, the bottom line that you're being asked -- and -- and it is one that I'm interested in the answer: If you say that marriage is a fundamental right, what State restrictions could ever exist? Meaning, what State restrictions with respect to the number of people, with respect to -- that could get married -- the incest laws, the mother and child, assuming that they are the age -- I can -- I can accept that the State has probably an overbearing interest on -- on protecting a child until they're of age to marry, but what's left? sltrib.com

To: i-node who wrote (706562)	3/30/2013 12:47:48 PM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1578452

He certainly did not. The quote follows, and he clearly referred to them as three separate groups of sexual deviants, which they are, and hhe didn't suggest in any way they were the same or even similar. Of course, when you're talking about students, you're talking about the indoctrinated. As they actually begin working many of the nut job views will give way to cold hard reality. CARSON: Well, my thoughts are that marriage is between a man and a woman. It's a well-established, fundamental pillar of society and no group, be they gays, be they NAMBLA, be they people who believe in bestiality. It doesn't matter what they are. They don't get to change the definition. What?! Of course he did. What is wrong with you? We're not talking politics here but simple English. I would add that it is a highly logical statement. It makes no sense whatsoever to change the definition and it is going to be done solely out of political correctness. While I support gay marriage, I do so only on the basis that I don't believe government should have any say in the matter at all, not because I think it makes sense. Except gov't already has a say if straights get married........now you want them to step aside because gays want to marry as well. Huh? The Constitution guarantees equal rights for all in this country and not just the people certain powers think should have those rights.