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 Trump Presidency -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (314129)	12/24/2024 1:01:59 PM
From: Doo	Respond to of 363232

When the default is freedom, by definition, there needs to be a reason to take away those rights, not a reason to grant them. If that is to be done, it should be done consciously with the knowledge that someone's rights are being taken away and that one can weigh the two options and state a compelling reason to take them away. Well-stated, and precisely the reason we have a Supreme Court charged with determining when states are taking away rights and freedoms without a compelling governmental interest (the standard of review).

To: Lane3 who wrote (314129)	12/24/2024 1:38:02 PM
From: i-node	1 Recommendation Recommended By longz Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 363232

Does no one understand freedom? Especially Republicans? You supported Obamacare. Sort of presumptuous to now claim the upper hand on freedom in health controversial health care matters. I have not yet heard a justification for taking them away. Many people have widely varying beliefs on abortion and there is no broad agreement on the topic. There was never going to be agreement that RvW was a one-size-fits-all solution. This problem is custom-made for and demands a state-by-state solution. People in California and Texas have polar opposite views on the subject. It is literally the raison d'être for state's rights on which many of us take great national pride. Alexis de Tocqueville, himself, found federalism and state's rights to be one of the most admirable qualifies of the USA as a nation. So, when it comes to abortion we have to make EVERYONE unhappy with our chosen outcome? While I know you're committed to a nationally codified commitment to abortion, isn't it enough that the states can establish laws accommodating the desires of the state's own residents? And that we have elections in Texas that allow us to change the laws if anyone wants to do it. I would vote for changing it. Your answer is, "Liberty". But not having state income taxes is liberty, too, yet most states do have a state income tax. It is a practical solution to an otherwise intractable problem. Just like varying rules on abortion -- and we can usually count on Texas and California to reflect the extremes of varying rules. I'm satisfied that over time this will settle out. Whether it is in OUR time or not who knows. It is too bad there is no one-size-fits-all solution, but that's just where we are at a moment in time.

To: Lane3 who wrote (314129)	12/24/2024 3:46:57 PM
From: combjelly	Respond to of 363232

Does no one understand freedom? Especially Republicans? They want their freedom to control others. Who are you to curtail that historical freedom?

To: Lane3 who wrote (314129)	12/24/2024 4:13:07 PM
From: Thomas M.	1 Recommendation Recommended By longz Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 363232

Does no one understand freedom? Especially Republicans? Unlimited abortion rights do constitute essential freedom. You're pretending not to understand that abortion is a complex issue so that you can cast the Democrats as the good guys. Outlawing abortion maximizes freedom and rights for fetuses. Tom

To: Lane3 who wrote (314129)	12/25/2024 9:26:00 AM
From: Thomas A Watson	1 Recommendation Recommended By longz Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 363232

The default is you do not believe that every human life starts at moment of conception. Another default is the ten commandments. The compromise is The constitution does not enforce 1 and 2. But those dealing with human conduct are followed and or enforced. You deny science facts the we know today.. Freedom is a bla bla. Survival is a fact. The highest survival is a balance between fairness and freedoms. You say men can define some relative definition of life to skirt thou shall not kill. Forget what science tells us. That does happen every day so let us extend that to innocent unborn lives. Who today is killing the people for their defdaut of their self interest. Let us just reset the defaut. *How are similar thins similuar and different and how are different things* *similuar and different*. Those are the place that show us what is out of the box and what is in the box.