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 : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: cc rogers who wrote (15905)	11/25/1998 12:39:00 AM
From: Johannes Pilch	Respond to of 67261

>Disgusting, but typical, to see 'men'...and I use the word lightly, to vigorously debate the abortion issue...having no way to know the pain of unwanted pregnancy. MEN have always raped women, and here you continue to do so in words.< So then because men cannot get pregnant, they have no right to debate abortion-- never mind that biologically the child comes also from men, and never mind that by law a man can be forced to provide for a child should it be born, and never mind that according to the laws of this country men still have the right to debate abortion should they decide to do so. >Finally women won the right to vote, then eventually worked to have the right to defend and maintain our own bodies.< Well they won the right to vote, and I certainly am glad for it, but you must understand that women did not win the right to vote by putting on armour and wrenching the vote from men. They instead convinced MEN to GIVE them the right to vote. We men ain't all dat bad. >OUR voice won this battle and will continue to win it.< Well, I'm tired, and so right now your voice sounds about like someone's scratching on a chalkboard. So you'll win anything you screech about where I am concerned. Don't exactly know what battle you will continue to win, but whatever it is-- knock yourself out. >You all can argue til the cows come home...you will never understand, so you will never be right..er, correct.< I see. Well, I know that it is contrary to life to jump buck naked to the sidewalk from the top of the World Trade Centre, but I didn't have to do it to find out. >The gall of anyone to call a part of a woman's body a child before she wishes to do so is arrogantly ignorant.< An odd part of your body that has its own genetic structure, its own heart, its own brain. A very odd part of the female anatomy that is. Of course with liberal scholarship being what it is, I am not surprised that yall jez be makin' up body parts dees daze. >Talk about your own body first: Jonnie, or whatever you call yourself...no wonder you are so full of hate. Impotent, or just no bullets????< If it is no wonder to you, then you should not have to ask. (What are they teachin' in de skools?) >Anyone on here ever invest, or just keep this drivel of hate going??< Since you've asked, I will tell you that lately I have been doing a bit of both. I invest quite a bit, and for entertainment enjoy kicking in the heads of a few liberals from time-to-time. I play the piano, some say I'm brilliant at it. I have my own plane. I love reading (currently rereading Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky), hunting, fishing and travel. I recently taught myself how to program a computer. I enjoy wine, cooking and "classical" music. Every so often I will try something different in music-- a little jazz (I can play bebop, and think Oscar Peterson amongst the greatest pianists ever to grace the face of the earth). I will sometimes listen to a little rock-n-roll-- old Genesis, old Yes, King Crimson, that whole Fripp/Belew/Bruford/Wetton thing. >There is a wonderful world out there...here we have beautiful whirling fall leaves and 72 degrees.< Yup. Just spent a ton of time out West soaking it up. Flew in for business, did a little hunting while I was at it. Had a fabulous time. Leaving tomorrow for Thanksgiving, will have a grand ol time, no doubt. >As to GWB....he has been a neighbor and a friend. So is Kay B Huchison. The fiscal conservatives won because the RR sulks if it can't have it all their way....but the MAJORITY wants fiscal responsibility and the church far away from the government.< Well fine. My interests lie in not having the government forcing garbage down my throat. Kinda tired of it. You tell your friend that, and also put it in your front yard and look at it. >That's a win-win ticket. I have e-mailed GW and Kay to have an aid review this silly thread. To read thru, bit by bit....wow.< Yeah, wow. >I have no words for it. Yes I do. Sad.< Wow. Profound. (Now. I must get to bed)

To: cc rogers who wrote (15905)	11/25/1998 1:02:00 AM
From: epicure	Respond to of 67261

>The gall of anyone to call a part of a woman's body a child before she wishes to do so is arrogantly ignorant. < I am sorry but this is just stupid. Of course an embryo or even the two cells- sperm and egg joined after the moment of conception- are a child- or a protochild if you will. It is the unique developmental material of which a unique human being will be made. That said it does not follow that a woman cannot kill the child she carries. But to see it in any other way is to ease the philosophical/moral decision inherent in the act. I personally abhor abortion, but the killing of human beings is allowed in many instances, so I cannot advocate that no woman have an abortion because I absolutely believe that killing is wrong- because I do not. I personally would kill to defend myself. I favor execution. I am not a pacifist and human lives are taken in war, frequently even innocent civilian lives. Of course allowing abortion and accepting it for what it is makes it hard to defend but it is possible. So rather than make a silly specious argument about how a human baby in its mothers womb really isn't a baby unless she chooses to call it that- better to argue that killing under some circumstances is up to the individual. A nasty brutal argument but it is the truth.

To: cc rogers who wrote (15905)	11/25/1998 2:07:00 AM
From: Borzou Daragahi	Respond to of 67261

Hello CC, Not all men who frequent this thread advocate the outlawing of abortion. Sometimes the four-horseman-of-the-apocalypse crowd here likes to fantasize about doing thus--that and denying homosexuals their rights. They discuss such issues in obsessively lurid and graphic terms that convince me and others they are merely trying to exorcise some inner demons. For the record: Abortion is a personal religious and moral issue that absolutely does not belong in the realm of politics and government. It is the province of the family, church/temple/mosque, and soul. I am a male and am personally very uncomfortable with the idea of abortion, especially during the late second and third trimesters when the fetus can be brought to term in an incubator. But I am also solidly pro-choice and can see where you are coming from: I am far more uncomfortable with the idea a bunch men (there was a pro-choice woman here, but she migrated away after another member got her suspended by the SI authorities) discussing the ethics of abortion in the context of elections and politics, using callous analytical and moral terms for what to women is an extremely harrowing personal dilemma. The discussion of whether it's acceptable for women who have been raped to have an abortion was to me particularly repugnant. Keep in mind, however, that it was just their fantasy. These people obviously have no inkling of what it's like to have to choose, to be the luckless woman who gets called a "whore" and "murderer" because she has found herself in such a bind that she has to walk into a clinic at 7 a.m. If you are a fiscal conservative who supports the GOP, it is these people--the religious right--you need to cast out of your party in order to win the presidential elections in 2000. As long as mainstream America identifies George W. Bush and Kay Bailey Hutchison with these people, they will never vote for them on a national level. God and government make a volatile, noxious combination. And Americans are a moderate, tolerant people. Be sure and tell your neighbors, George and Kay, that. They need to engineer some sort of bloodless coup to wrest the control and image of the party from these people. Half-measures will not suffice. They need to clearly repudiate these people, just as Clinton repudiated the leftist elements in his party by declaring the era of big government over. Once the GOP does that, Al Gore won't stand a chance in 2000. (Imagine what would happen to the Democrats if Bush declared, "The era of intolerance and bigotry is over!") But if they don't do that, any American who has a gay friend or relative, is a member of an ethnic or religious minority, or has themselves or known someone who has had to make the painful and soul-searing choice of whether to have an abortion, will have no recourse but to vote for the Democrats. Thanks for visiting!