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 : Mainstream Politics and Economics -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: koan who wrote (47032)	6/28/2013 1:32:22 AM
From: Jorj X Mckie	6 Recommendations Recommended By average joe Brumar89 jlallen Little Joe Paul Smith and 1 more member Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 85487

I think what you mean is that you are wrong. That the arctic region has had periods in the recent past where the polar cap has shrunk as much as it has today even without today's level of CO2. And miraculously, we managed to survive as a species. you can't try to pass something off as fact that supports your position and then whine when you get called on it.

To: koan who wrote (47032)	6/28/2013 7:35:59 AM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 85487

Koan, gay marriage really isn't one of my issues, I'm not fighting against it, and this post isn't opposing it, but I know that you support it, and also care a lot about democracy (even at times above other important values), so how does this look like democracy? I can understand the first judicial rule than the ban is unconstitutional under the CA constitution. I don't know if it is or not, but judicial review, while undemocratic, is an important part of our system. But then another judge (the "closeted homosexual" part appears to be ad hominem, but then I didn't create that picture and it isn't required to make the point) calling a constitutional amendment unconstitutional? They can be so in a technical way, but here the claim was more the substance of the amendment doesn't meet the constitution, but the constitution changes with an amendment. And amendment could for example end the amendment process. And then if the people don't have standing to challenge a judge striking down an amendment, the power of judges goes to far, and its very undemocratic. Please respond to the questions of the process of the issue, I'm pretty sure I know what you feel about gay marriage, this post isn't about same sex marriage, its about the judicial decisions, and how they are undemocractic. If it helps imagine the same thing happened to some amendment you did agree with.