selkirk

BECAUSE IT'S NOT YET A HUMAN BEING! INCAPABLE OF LIVING BY ITSELF! I asked you before to define the beginning of life - you haven't. Until you define that your another right wing wackjob (the counterpoint to a leftwing loon) Acting on your "feelings" and "beliefs" the same touchy feely crap that the Republicans loved to slam democrats over. If a baby is delivered and unable to live without a incubator or respirator may we kill it then as well? That's not a decision anyone should be making for the family. I wouldn't want the government deciding whether or not I should be pulled off a respirator for that matter, that decision belongs to the people who care about me most. Not the rest of you wankers Well what if you have 99% chance of survival and your mother says "you know, I really don't think that I can handle this kid." and kills you. You can't survive without assistance, but you will live regardless. Why is this any different given your logic? That's the nice thing about having my "mother" or actually it would be my wife make the decision..... they wouldn't decide to pull the plug. If at birth my mother was screwed up enough to want me that little or to care that little. Under those circumstances I would probably already be crack baby or have fetal alcohol syndrom, and to be that non-chalant about it, I can pretty much guarantee I would have grown up messed up, and miserable, or dying shortly there after from neglect anyway. I still stand by it, "heroic measures" whether they are for a baby, or an adult, are the domain of the family and the loved ones, with advice from the Dr's. Not the state. Otherwise were going to have to take all medical decisions away from the family, and that's a scary proposition.

BECAUSE IT'S NOT YET A HUMAN BEING! INCAPABLE OF LIVING BY ITSELF! I asked you before to define the beginning of life - you haven't. Until you define that your another right wing wackjob (the counterpoint to a leftwing loon) Acting on your "feelings" and "beliefs" the same touchy feely crap that the Republicans loved to slam democrats over. If a baby is delivered and unable to live without a incubator or respirator may we kill it then as well? That's not a decision anyone should be making for the family. I wouldn't want the government deciding whether or not I should be pulled off a respirator for that matter, that decision belongs to the people who care about me most. Not the rest of you wankers So the lefty's were being to militant. It shouldn't be their place to pass judgement on any religion. That doesn't mean there should be prayer in school though, just that there shouldn't be militant atheism there either (as much of a religion as any other in my opinion). It's not the place of public school teachers to be discussing God, either for or agains, unless they're going to go about it from every angle.

No it's definitely not an either/or issue. But those are entrance requirements for the vote. If the candiate doesn't come across as intelligent and thoughtful, he won't get the democratic vote, and if doesn't come across as approachable, and as a "common" man (regardless of his background, because there is no way Bush is "common") the republicans won't vote for him. Which is why Clinton did so phenomenally, he was bright and articulate, while still being someone people could identify with, appeal for both sides. Kerry, was two much the Wealthy Massachusets Intellectual, and Bush not enough of a thoughtful intellectual for either of them to pull votes from the other party. And once again were a nation divided.

The christians i've known who were persecuted, weren't the ones who were humbly practicing their faith, and going about their own lives. They're the ones who are trying to convert everyone, or the ones that came across so holier than thow it was disturbing, the ones who were throwing their religion in everyones face when it should be a personal thing, to me this smacks of pride, and arrogance (can someone say 7 deadly sins?). This coming from a catholic, so don't pull out the atheist bit.

Where did you go to school? A moment of silence would be fine in my opinion. In all reality I think that's still used in some places, though typically not daily. I remember doing that after several national tragedies going through school. And while it's not a slippery slope exactly, I don't exactly trust people everywhere to stick to "moment of silence", in which case the teacher should be dealt with locally. Attaching the word "prayer" to it though, and you immediately raise the hackles of a lot of people on both sides. It's a fighten word.

The 10 commandments are a sticking point only because not everyone wants them and not everyone is christian. As a historical point they're fine, but it's not the history that makes them desirable, it's the fact they were handed down from god. If I were a muslim, i'd be scared shitless to walk into a southern court where the judge has set displayed next to the bench! I'd feel like I was getting a fairl trial. As for "spiritual introspection" or a moment of silence, fine... but how many classes would it immediately devolve into a teacher led prayer? Maybe not in seattle, but how about the bible belt or southern Idaho? Abortion, that's the sticky point, when do you define a fetus as a person? Conception? Implantation in the uterus? Heartbeat? Birth? 18yrs old? I would agree with Implantation in the Uterus, but I won't force everyone to agree with me

Does it really boil down to something that simple? Do most democrats as fundamental requirement want some intelligent and articulate, and moderate republicans/middle america want someone they can identify with?

Your confused Scott, "liberals" aren't for giving everyone abortions but for giving that right to choose to the mother, and to give her safe options. If you outlaw it you may decrease it the numbers, or you may just drive it underground and onto the black market. If a women really wants an abortion, she'll find a way. At least currently it's safe. -tearing down the 10 commandments. The country and goverment was designed as secular, tearing them down doesn't mean you can't believe them, or I can't believe in them. It only means they don't belong on a courthouse wall. -prayer in schools, only if it's not called prayer as everyone is not religious, and only if the teacher either teaches absolutely nothing about religion, or teaches them all equally, atheism included. (Had a great High school teacher who did just that! We studied Buddhism, Right after the Old Testament, and before the New Testament.) -afirmative action... agreed... dead already.... The mistake made is that by supporting personal choice people interpert choice as mandate and think the democrats want... -racial quotas for everyone to enforce equality -to enforce atheism on everyone and ban religion -to require abortions Looking at Kerry, he was Catholic, personally against abortion, and personally against gay marriage.... but doesn't feel the need to enforce his morals on everyone else, that doesn't make him immmoral, just considerate.

That's half my point Norman. It seems like a lot of people feel that since Iraq isn't christian then they're somehow not worth our time to worry about. That our needs are somehow more important the needs or rights of everyone else in the world, simply because they're. What makes us so special? As for 10 commandments in schools/courthouses... the only issue I have with it is that it does amount to the government, supporting a single religion. If you wanted to have a moment of though in which the teacher let students pray, worship, or feel annoyed as they wanted i'd be fine with that. But if the Teacher is going to lead a christian, or even judeo-christian prayer (as I have a feeling many probably would), that's a big no-no, it's not her place. It might seem fine so long as the entire class is homogonized, white middle class christians of the same denomination where everyone holds the same values, or allowing those who wish to to abstain, but that still marks those who abstain or dissent out as seperate and going through school is hard enough with out extra pressure. Same goes for the 10 commandments in court rooms. Even if that is the basis for our laws, it's arrogant to assume that everyone feels the same way you do about them, the governments place is to enforce the laws, not the 10 commandments, if having those on the wall makes 1 person feel marginalized or threatened than they aren't accptable there. Have to agree with CJ, what moral agenda are the Dems pushing? Acceptance, the government shouldn't be playing in Religion? Everyone should be making their own moral choices whenever possible instead of the government?

Not actually anyone on here. I'm just annoyed at the whole, voting for "core values" that is more trying to enforce their values on everyone else. I've just met too many people who's "core values" are such that they exclude the possibility of anyone else being right or having a valid opinion. I get the impression that a lot of conservatives feel that the Democrats aren't a "moral" or "ethically strong" party, when that's not really true. It's just that most liberals feel that they would rather leave those moral and ethical decisions up to individuals who have to make them whether than trying to make them for everyone else and enforcing their will. (i.e. Roe vs. Wade, is the classic example. I don't think anyone should have an abortion, I don't really think it's ethical. As a catholic i'm fairly sure Kerry feels the same way. The difference is that at the same time I don't think it's right to enforce my beliefs on everyone else, so i'm pro-choice. Same goes for Gay Marriage) That doesn't mean that every practice under the sun should be legal, but there should really be some sort of standard about what's written into law and what's left to personal decision, and in my opinion that standard should be that when your actions begin severly or dangerously affecting other people. And somehow I don't see Gay Marriage really ruining the lives of anyone. The whole "when does life begin" is a little stickier question.

How come so many extremely religious individuals feel honestly believe that only their "morals" are valid? Do they honestly feel that everyone else is completely immoral and with out any sense of ethics or what's right? This goes for both the terrorists, and a lot of religious right. I never quite understood that. How can people be so arrogant?

We are talking about puppies here aren't we?

Would NASCAR replace Freshiez as the alternate discussion topic as Freshiez and Ice would have to go by the wayside?

Not quite all the liberals Anyways, it's just the and talking as everyone trys to dull the pain and contemplates moving to Canada and giving away the south.

Your certainly right Scott. The liberal party is moving, but I don't see that as a bad thing. Organisms of any sort (be they nations or bacteria) need to learn, grow, change and adapt. It seems like the conservatives want a ridgid, inflexible government that homogonizes everyone, while the liberals are trying to move forward. I would say that's a good thing though, led to abortion rights, desegregation, womens suffrage, etc. And it's not just TV, it's the entire, culture, of mass produced, easily digestable, uncontrovercial, ultra homogonized, unoffensive, crap, be it N-Sync, Britney Spears, Walmart, Fear Factor, or Reality TV. The whole problem is that so many things in our society are geared towards not being acceptable and marketable to everyone, hence no ones beliefs are challenged in ways that force them to critically analyze them. I think this goes for both sides of the political spectrum. The whole process of life has become "easy", following the paths that are not necessarily good or right, but are the ones that immediately appear under our feet. Can't remember who said it but "Following the path of least resistance, is what makes rivers and men crooked" and it's the path this country seems to want to be on. I've got a friend who I went to highschool with (and is a really intelligent guy) but drifted into the whole libertarian/constituitanalist/states rights movement. For a while he was actually part of the new incarnation of Amway, and firmly believed that the best way to make lots of money (which in my opinion is disproportionally important to him) was to find someone with lots of money, and imitate them/do what they say works. The fault in his logic was that the people telling him what to do, weren't looking out for his best interests they were looking out for their own. It was apparent if you really sat down and thought about it... of course they all said, don't think, do what I tell you....What's easy and attractive is rarely right. and people in this country are making too many decisions based on what's easy or pleasant, and not on what's good or right in my opinion. (Again this goes for both sides of the political spectrum to some degree)

100 times that many were killed before we got there. How come we don't have a dead horse graemlin? Somehow I don't see bush as a uniter, even if he has picked up a few percent of the popular vote. At the beginning of his term 50% of the people didn't think he'd do a good job, now 48% think he's completely off his rocker and are scared of/hate his administration. I wouldn't call that progress. I also don't think quietly stepping into "line" with his policies even if I don't agree is what's best for the country. This is different from feeling standing behind the troops on the ground. I'm more than happy to send care packages to friends while voicing my opinion that we still shouldn't be there. Here's to hoping we don't invade anywhere else for half assed reasons. Though I kind of think we'll be bogged down in Iraq long enough to tie our troops up for at least 2 or 3 more years.

North Idaho still wants to cede, and take Eastern Washington with it.

Wouldn't it be easier to gang up give Florida, Texas, and the rest of the south to Puerto Rico so they have enough people to justify declaring independance?

Yeah, somehow they all seem to think that if they look at us while our backs are turned, that we can tell that For the girls reading this.. the appropriate level of "subtle" for letting a guy know what your thinking usually involves a 2x4.

Women want to be "subtle" so they don't appear to eager or easy. In guys terms "subtle" means completely unreadable to us. As such, they will never express interest in anyone they are remotely interested in in a manner the guy can actually pick up on. So the only solution is to go ask out the ones your interested in.

Give me a break. You think that you are the intellegentsia? You have got te be joking. You are all working class stiffs and you feel that you have it all figured out. Jesus you are Narcissistic! Says the guy studying multiple languages on his way to OCS as opposed to regular old boot camp, and living in one of the most highly educated parts of the country.

I depends on how you define "justified", and everyone defines it a little differently. Some people require a great deal more evidence or cause before they consider it justified. Was he an asshole, yes. Did he at one time commit genocide, yes. Did he have WMD's, questionable at the time. Was he a threat to the US, questionable. Invading would give us a stronger foothold in the region (i.e the bases were building there), absolutely. Does it to some degree secure an oil interest, for us, yes. Are those reasons collectively sufficient justification to go to war? Now that becomes a personal decision.....Scott says, absolutely, I would say no... That doesn't make either of us right or wrong though.

What do you think? should I jump on your spelling? Genocide has nothing to do with anything. It's not why we went to war, it's almost never been why we've gone to war. We've put troops into just a few places for humanitarian places (Somalia, and Bosnia are the only ones I can think of.) It's always about our countries interests, end of story. Pretty much like that with every country, or someone else would already have troops there.

Can you really blame her? The 's are grumpy with us.

For me?? I don't think we should have invaded at all. But if the president decides we are going to invade, would really have appreciate knowing the real reasons, and not have smoke blown up my ass. On the first count I disagree with Bush, on the s econd I lost respect for him.