self-appointed role as "Policeman of the World" (a role which Dubya's family is firmly in favour of)
Haven't been paying much attention, have you? You are a little mixed up here. The Clinton/Gore administration has placed US troops in seperate combat situations in more countries than any other administration in history. Gore is the one that supports US intervention in every little civil uprising that occures. Bush has been clear that he will only use military intervention when the vital interests of the US are at stake.
I've still found his opinions to be based more on grand ideals than reality. Universal health care for all, down with business, guns are evil we must remove them all! These all sounds like great, well researched opinions, but since he (and the green) party have no idea how to actually do it, and arguably know as much about economics as your average undergrad (their policies prove this to me, an Econ major) they fall short. Having an ideal and something to rally for (or in their case against, it seems) is all well and good, but without a feasible plan they mean nothing.
How I yearn for Republicans that can actually think.
What the Hell makes you think the above poster speaks for anyone but himself? He does not speak for all republicians. In fact, he only speaks for one republician.
That very night, it was you who found real work for yourself by executing your 117th human being in Texas.
Really, he prosecuted the criminal, presided over the trial, found the defendant guilty and pronounced sentance? Then he pulled the switch? Come on, all Bush did was refrain from sticking his nose into the judicial system and overturning the decision of a federal judge.
It's uninformed, ignorant whiners like Moore that make the Green party look loonier than it really is.
You are aware that the 10 commandments are posted in the Supreme court building...
There is a lot of christian influence in the creation of this country, reading the writings of the founders shows this. Maybe we should re-write history as it tends to offend some.
Let's face it, we don't know what Gore supports.
He said one thing on larry king and something else in the debates. I guess you can pretend ge believes in whatever you want.
I'm going to disagree with your beliefs, because I hold them as well. But yes, there IS legal limits to what we can do with our bodies. Should there be? that's a question for the politicians we elect.
The argument has been made that abortion (like prostitution) can also undermine the moral fabric of society. Does it? Well, it doesn't affect me any so it's not something I can answer.
If so, it's a fairly disconcerting statement. Why wouldn't a woman be allowed to do whatever she wished to her body (provided it did not harm another "human being")?
That get's back into the whole "what is a fetus" arguement that isn't going to ever be solved by the look of things. However, I certainly agree with the statement, and wish that kind of logic was applied to all our 'rights' in this country.
On behalf of well adjusted, open minded people everywhere who enjoy a wide range of activites, thanks.:)
I sometimes think some of the people I know who are 'geeks' intentionally think, act, and dress the way they think they are supposed to in order to claim that title. It's just as bad as the jocks only on a different side of the coin.
Has ANYONE has a school disipline issue (that "perminant record" stuff they always threatend us with) come back to haunt them? Hell I was suspended, thrown into detention, and all kinds of other stuff. After HS, it means dick.
Well, voting is always a decision of who you agree MOST with, not always completly. I'm voting for Bush even though there are issues that I strongly disagree with him on.
True, but even if you consider that a fetus is not a human life, there is no actual "right" that women possess to do anything to their bodies. Hard drugs, prostitution, etc are illegal even though they are arguable the same thing, a destructive act preformed on one's body.
You may argue that these things should be illegal (For that matter, I have no problem with legal abortion, I just don't want my tax dollers supporting it) but they still aren't and a women doesn't possess this mysterious right to do whatever she wants with her body.
Is your gay roommate's lover your roommate's roommate?
sorry.
You should be.
Ironically, his lover (who lives in a different state altogether) just broke up with him deciding that he was going to try being straight again.
It's a wierd world:)
The origional poster said freedom of religion was fine but what about freedom FROM religion. I simply replied that there was no such right spelled out.
I interpret freedom of religion as meaning that students can form prayer groups if they want, and all that you said. Maybe it's just vocabulary semantics but I imagined freedom FROM religion (the request that started this thread) would mean that they wouldn't be allowed to form prayer groups and etc. Maybe I just need clarification on what the origional poster meant by freedom from as opposed to freedom of religion.
Agreed, but by even personalizing, I would hope that Bush still held his beliefs about the issues that piss off/., other wise he would be pandering and changing his story depending on who he talked to (like gore did when he came to PA pretending to be all about second amendment right, then talks to HCI about how all guns need to be banned)
Personally, can understand not wanting to have gay marriages (being something that is traditional and all) but I support some kind of union with the same exact legal status as marriage.
My gay roommate agrees with me there also, but he is a pretty conservative gay (which in itself is kinda funny:)
That's freedom OF religion, not from it. Freedom from religion would require that the government proactivly make sure that nobody pray around you or publicaly expressed their religious beliefs.
That does not free you from ever coming in contact with religion (what exactally do you want by freedom FROM religion), it just says "Congress shall make NO LAW respecting an establishment of religion"
Seems pretty straight forward, sounds like it grants freedom of religion.
You have the right to believe anything you want. What freedom from religion sounds like is being shielded from religions. Sorry, but it says God on our dollers and we have the ten commandments in the supreme court, government has to obligation to make sure you never come in contact with religion, it just can't force you to believe in one.
And you expect everyone to know this? My how arrogant of you. Are you under the impression that 90% of the people in this country have even heard of it?
To be fair, Gore refuses straight answers also. Every question in the debates was answered with a completly off topic tangent or simple restatement of the question (forign policy especially)
Slashdot Mirror
self-appointed role as "Policeman of the World" (a role which Dubya's family is firmly in favour of)
Haven't been paying much attention, have you? You are a little mixed up here. The Clinton/Gore administration has placed US troops in seperate combat situations in more countries than any other administration in history. Gore is the one that supports US intervention in every little civil uprising that occures. Bush has been clear that he will only use military intervention when the vital interests of the US are at stake.
Finkployd
I've still found his opinions to be based more on grand ideals than reality. Universal health care for all, down with business, guns are evil we must remove them all! These all sounds like great, well researched opinions, but since he (and the green) party have no idea how to actually do it, and arguably know as much about economics as your average undergrad (their policies prove this to me, an Econ major) they fall short. Having an ideal and something to rally for (or in their case against, it seems) is all well and good, but without a feasible plan they mean nothing.
Finkployd
How I yearn for Republicans that can actually think.
What the Hell makes you think the above poster speaks for anyone but himself? He does not speak for all republicians. In fact, he only speaks for one republician.
That was WAY too easy.
Finkployd
if the right man cheats and lies himself into office, fine. Only the outcome matters. If Gore has to cheat to win, so be it. He's better
There is your typical "new" democrat response. Who cares if we lie cheat and steal, we know what is better for you than you do.
How I yearn for the "FDR" democrats of yesterday.
Finkployd
That very night, it was you who found real work for yourself by executing your 117th human being in Texas.
Really, he prosecuted the criminal, presided over the trial, found the defendant guilty and pronounced sentance? Then he pulled the switch? Come on, all Bush did was refrain from sticking his nose into the judicial system and overturning the decision of a federal judge.
It's uninformed, ignorant whiners like Moore that make the Green party look loonier than it really is.
Finkployd
You are aware that the 10 commandments are posted in the Supreme court building...
There is a lot of christian influence in the creation of this country, reading the writings of the founders shows this. Maybe we should re-write history as it tends to offend some.
Finkployd
Let's face it, we don't know what Gore supports.
He said one thing on larry king and something else in the debates. I guess you can pretend ge believes in whatever you want.
Finkployd
I'm going to disagree with your beliefs, because I hold them as well. But yes, there IS legal limits to what we can do with our bodies. Should there be? that's a question for the politicians we elect.
The argument has been made that abortion (like prostitution) can also undermine the moral fabric of society. Does it? Well, it doesn't affect me any so it's not something I can answer.
If so, it's a fairly disconcerting statement. Why wouldn't a woman be allowed to do whatever she wished to her body (provided it did not harm another "human being")?
That get's back into the whole "what is a fetus" arguement that isn't going to ever be solved by the look of things. However, I certainly agree with the statement, and wish that kind of logic was applied to all our 'rights' in this country.
Finkployd
On behalf of well adjusted, open minded people everywhere who enjoy a wide range of activites, thanks. :)
I sometimes think some of the people I know who are 'geeks' intentionally think, act, and dress the way they think they are supposed to in order to claim that title. It's just as bad as the jocks only on a different side of the coin.
Finkployd
Has ANYONE has a school disipline issue (that "perminant record" stuff they always threatend us with) come back to haunt them? Hell I was suspended, thrown into detention, and all kinds of other stuff. After HS, it means dick.
Finkployd
So as a minor he entered into a non-breakable contract by running? That is a major legal no-no :)
Finkployd
Well, voting is always a decision of who you agree MOST with, not always completly. I'm voting for Bush even though there are issues that I strongly disagree with him on.
Finkployd
True, but even if you consider that a fetus is not a human life, there is no actual "right" that women possess to do anything to their bodies. Hard drugs, prostitution, etc are illegal even though they are arguable the same thing, a destructive act preformed on one's body.
You may argue that these things should be illegal (For that matter, I have no problem with legal abortion, I just don't want my tax dollers supporting it) but they still aren't and a women doesn't possess this mysterious right to do whatever she wants with her body.
Finkployd
Is your gay roommate's lover your roommate's roommate?
:)
sorry.
You should be.
Ironically, his lover (who lives in a different state altogether) just broke up with him deciding that he was going to try being straight again.
It's a wierd world
Finkployd
Yes, I am splitting hairs but I didn't start it :)
The origional poster said freedom of religion was fine but what about freedom FROM religion. I simply replied that there was no such right spelled out.
Finkployd
I interpret freedom of religion as meaning that students can form prayer groups if they want, and all that you said. Maybe it's just vocabulary semantics but I imagined freedom FROM religion (the request that started this thread) would mean that they wouldn't be allowed to form prayer groups and etc. Maybe I just need clarification on what the origional poster meant by freedom from as opposed to freedom of religion.
Finkployd
Agreed, but by even personalizing, I would hope that Bush still held his beliefs about the issues that piss off /., other wise he would be pandering and changing his story depending on who he talked to (like gore did when he came to PA pretending to be all about second amendment right, then talks to HCI about how all guns need to be banned)
Finkployd
Personally, can understand not wanting to have gay marriages (being something that is traditional and all) but I support some kind of union with the same exact legal status as marriage.
:)
My gay roommate agrees with me there also, but he is a pretty conservative gay (which in itself is kinda funny
Finkployd
That's freedom OF religion, not from it. Freedom from religion would require that the government proactivly make sure that nobody pray around you or publicaly expressed their religious beliefs.
Finkployd
That does not free you from ever coming in contact with religion (what exactally do you want by freedom FROM religion), it just says "Congress shall make NO LAW respecting an establishment of religion"
Seems pretty straight forward, sounds like it grants freedom of religion.
Finkployd
You have the right to believe anything you want. What freedom from religion sounds like is being shielded from religions. Sorry, but it says God on our dollers and we have the ten commandments in the supreme court, government has to obligation to make sure you never come in contact with religion, it just can't force you to believe in one.
Finkployd
And you expect everyone to know this? My how arrogant of you. Are you under the impression that 90% of the people in this country have even heard of it?
Finkployd
Wasn't gay marriage the one thing that Gore and Bush agreed on during the debates? Gore doesn't support it either, IIRC.
Finkployd
To be fair, Gore refuses straight answers also. Every question in the debates was answered with a completly off topic tangent or simple restatement of the question (forign policy especially)
Finkployd
Hmmmmm, and where is freedom from religion spelled out in our country's constitution or laws? Or did you just make that one up.
:)
Maybe it's spelled out in the same 'hidden' part of the constitution that a women's "right" to abortion is declared.
Yes, this is blatent flamebait, but I've got more karma than I know what to do with and it felt good to write
Finkployd