I'm assuming 'improved type handling' in the context of programming, would have to do with the.Net stuff, and the vastly improved type libraries and ability to 'discover' types on the fly.
But the phrase could also refer to the inclusion of ClearType for LCD screens, to provide improved type display.
By the way, I did listen to the sermon. One troubling bit:
The equation of homosexuality with 'flaming, dressed up as a woman' stuff. Almost no gay men I know dress up in drag or are overly effeminate. Sure, some are. But there's this stupid stereotype that all homosexuals are alike... mincing, lispy, wimpy, effeminate, drag queens who live to dance and party and have sex.
That's true of a few, to be sure. But not for most. If you were to see me on the street, or anywhere else, you wouldn't "spot" me as a gay person. Or most of my friends, for that matter. I think if you saw how normal most of us are, and how valid and loving our relationships can be, you'd be a little more forgiving... and maybe see that even though some of us don't follow your Christ into your God's Grace, we still deserve the respect of the law, and we're still happy and producive members of society.
Homosexuality doesn't equate with promiscuity... though obviously there is that aspect (just as there is for heterosexuality). If you wish to stand against promiscuity, that's fine... but don't single out gay people. Gay people can form moral, just, monogamous relationships too... and in the face of all of society's condemnation too!
Also, the theory that homosexuality is soley caused by something 'missing'... I just don't buy it. It makes more sense (given the actual facts and research) that homosexuality is caused by hormone levels in utero during crucial stages of development mixed with genetic predispositions and other causes. But I don't KNOW that, it just seems to fit the data to my understanding. Homosexuality isn't a psychological disease or mental disorder.
As I've listened to your sermon, I do hope you'd look at and read the resources I linked you to earlier in this thread.
When I said that there cannot be a middle ground here, you misunderstood what I was talking about--we cannot both be happy with the state of marriage at the same time.
Sure we can. Why not? You have your ideas of marriage, and I have mine. Your church consecrates your marriage, and not mine (fine with both of us), and the state grants my long-term monogamous relationship the same tax/property/etc rights as yours (you may not be happy, but why should you care? Why NOT be happy that I'm happy and protected in the case of calamity?)
It is unfortunate that parts of the church have further muddied the water around this issue and support gay marriage, but this is not a real union in the eyes of God. His plan is quite simple; one man, one women in a lifelong commitment--no amount of semantic postulating will change this.
Yes, yes, this is YOUR churches interpretation of YOUR bible and YOUR God's word and desire and plan. Other churches (even Christian churches) have different views (again see references I directed you towards earlier in this conversation). And others believe in different gods, or no gods at all. Oh, and I never stated that I do not believe in God. I've simply used lots of examples from various religions to help make my point: my friends are a diverse group with diverse beliefs. My beliefs do not directly coincide with yours, obviously. And my point with bringing up athiests, hindus, unitarians, agnostics, etc., is that your beliefs should not trump OUR beliefs in the arena of civil law.
However, if I were you, I wouldn't presume to go around telling people what their beliefs mean.
Interestinly, I'm not doing that: you are. You are saying your personal beliefs should be codified into law and then forced onto me. I am NOT saying that my beliefs should be forced on to you.
Do you know there are a lot of people who call themselves Christian and really aren't?
Sure, but as you state, which is which is not really for you or me to know... you could be on the wrong side just as easily as my devout Christian gay friends. Only God can say, and then only if the Christian God you worship is the one true god (if not, the Hindu god Shiva might just chuckle at your naivity;-)
Don't take my opposition to gay marriage as persecution.
How can I not? Because of your religion, you wish to deny me over 1047 federal legal rights and responsibilities, just because you don't approve of who I love and plan to build my life with. You make a judgement that my love and relationship isn't worthy of any legal protections based soley on my 'status' and the 'status' of my partner -- not on us as individual human beings -- and wish to have your religious convictions codified into law to prevent me from enjoying the civil rights you take for granted.
However, I do have a moral obligation to do my best to prevent society from deciding an immoral thing is okay. That doesn't mean I will always succeed, but to do otherwise would be going against my faith.
So I think you'd best be getting out there and getting laws passed to prevent anyone from working on a Sunday. That's an abomination. And you had better get campaigning to get shellfish off all menus, and to ban the use of two fibers in any cloth. And the Bible says quite clearly that it's okay to sell women into slavery, so better be working to make that legal.
My POINT in this, which you seem to keep missing, is that you idea of 'morality' is very arbitrary, and does not match everyone elses (or even most people's). We have a FREE country with religious freedom written right into our consitition. This implies a separation of Church and State, and dictates that civil law be concerned with ETHICS, and that MORALITY be left to an individual's church. It is against the law to murder because doing so infringes on the rights and freedoms of someone else. Assult, theft, etc., are all illegal for the same reasons. My right to throw a punch ends at your nose, and vice-versa. So how does my having a civil union affect or harm you in any measurable way? It doesn't. And by all logic and ethical standards, two same sex partners who love each other and are comitted to each other, should be allowed to have the same legal protections as any two opposite sex partners. The union of two people provides a more stable unit than a single (or any multiple beyond two), and serves as a benefit to society over all.
In short, to fulfill your 'moral obligation', you are free to try and talk same-sex couples OUT of getting married (and they're free to ignore you if you do so), but you are NOT free to ban them or physically/legally prevent them from joining in a union that is supported by their families, belief systems, church, etc. That is just not right... unless you avoid hypocricy by condeming ANY 'civil union' granted by the government, including civil marriage between heterosexual couples. In otherwords, the government should provide the same benefits and services to all their citizens.
Whoa, cool, for a minute there I thought you were talking about Harry Browne.
Harry Browne wouldn't propose legislation that would prevent consumers from suing companies for things like environmental disasters, etc. Harry Browne would be, I think, more for corporations and individuals taking responsibility for their actions... unlike Bush.
The problem is, there is no middle ground here. Either this country supports your worldview, or mine. Either marriage will be Holy Matrimony, or it will be a legal union between two people--but it cannot be both.
Of course it can be both. It already is both. And of course there's middle ground... only an extremist would say otherwise.
The fact is, what is called "marriage" is actually TWO institutions. There is the religious "marriage" which takes place in a church, and is holy before the eyes of God (whichever god the particular religion worships). Then there is 'civil' marriage. This is prepresented by the legal document signed by the couple. This is entirely separate and independant of religious marriage. You can have a 'church wedding' without making it 'legal', and you can have a 'civil wedding' without ever stepping foot in a church or beliving in any particular God.
If you acknowledge these simple facts (and you have to, since I have 'married' heterosexual friends who have done one, the other, or both), then clearly you can see that your assertion that 'it cannot be both' is wrong. Utterly and completely.
Gay people can ALREADY get married in churches. They do all the time. I've had several gay friends (of the Catholic, Reform Jewish, and Unitarian faiths in particular) get marred in lavish ceremonies before the eyes of their God, in a church, presided over by a ministor/pastor/priest/rabbi (whichever is appropriate to the specific religion involved). NOBODY is asking any church to violate its beliefs or perform marriages it doesn't support. NOBODY. I know of no gay person or straight person who thinks that any religion should be compelled to marry anyone it doesn't wish to. Period. This is what freedom of religion is all about. Some churches refuse to perform interfaith marriages, others refuse to perform interracial marriages, etc. That's fine. That is there right.
It's the second part that gays are asking for: civil marriage. The piece of paper. The part that confers all the legal property rights, hospital visitation rights, immigration rights, tax rights, insurance rights, decision making rights, etc. Recognizing same-sex relationships in this way does not in any way weaken or lessen "marriage" as you know it. It does not in any way threaten straight relationships or marriages. It just means that gay couples would have the same rights (and responsibilities!) as straight couples under civil law. This would be especially important, imho, if children are involved (and lots of gay couples have children, either from previous relationships, conceived using artificial insemination or surrogacy, or through adoption). I would think that at the very least, you'd support these civil rights to protect the children and their interests, if nothing else. Even if you don't agree same-sex couples should HAVE children, that isn't going to change, especially when one of the parents is a biological parent.
In my view, civil marriage doesn't hurt you or anyone else, and helps the partners and children of same-sex spouses.
And beyond that, several countries already have same-sex marriages on the books (Netherlands, Norway, Sweeden, Denmark) as well as civil unions (France and soon Canada, among others). No civilization has fallen. There has been no breakdown of "the family". The sky has not fallen. There have been no significant costs. And in fact, gay bashing and violence against gays (never high in those countries to begin with) has decreased. That's a good thing too, no? And there has been no 'surge' in the number of homosexuals either, no 'conversions' from straight-to-gay, or anything of that nature either.
I would think the facts and examples would speak for themselves. Can you see the middle ground now? You can safely ignore same sex marriages if you wish (though you can't LEGALLY discriminate against same-sex couples in employment or business, which I would hope you wouldn't do anyway), and they just don't affect you. Can you provide me with a clear concise argument about why same-sex *civil* marriages WOULD threaten you, and why they SHOULD be illegal? Obviously, a religious argument would be inappropriate here.
I'd be curious to hear your response, because for the life of me, this is the one thing I simply cannot understand: If churches who don't allow interracial or interfaith marriages to occur, and who won't marry athiests at all allow these marriages to occur at the Justice Of the Peace and in civil courts, why not same-sex marriages? Nobody is asking them to agree with it, and nobody is compelling them to perform them, and I cannot fathom how they'd be negatively affected by the few people that would choose to partake of them, if offered. I'd love to hear a clear explaination.
Ahah. So. Morning after pill is no problem. It's okay. So a day after conception, it isn't murder. How about two days? Four days? A week? Two weeks? Where is it, exactly, that you draw the line, and it suddenly becomes a heinous murder?
While it is a behavior that can and is being changed in people...
This is mostly a load of malarky. There are no facts to back up that homosexuals 'can change' into heterosexuals. Even most of the so-called "ex-gays" have reverted over time to their natural ways. Most 'successful' conversions weren't homosexual to begin with... if pressed, they'll admit to being attracted to women the entire time, and that they're still attracted to men, they're just ignoring that. In short, they were bisexual, and now they're "back in the closet". When pressed for stats on successful conversion therapy figures, none of the so-called ex-gay ministries will reveal statistics. Many will admit that the success rate is VERY low, and even that requires a very broad definition of 'success'.
In short, it comes down to torturing people in many cases (electrodes on testicals, shock therapy, aversion therapy) and other classical conditioning methods, and even with that, the 'change' is not at all guarenteed or permanent. Many men who go through this are driven to suicide, their own self-loathing intensified. Many others find an inner strength through the program to come out of the closet again, as stronger and happier people -- but still gay.
Basically, I believe 'conversion' from true homosexuality to true heterosexuality is not possible, or even desirable. I know I TRIED to be 'straight' for many years, and I was absolutely miserable. Why? Because I was violateing my own nature. Once I came out, accepted myself for who and what i was, I became very peacful, happy, and productive.
Homosexuals do not get 'converted'. They don't get 'coerced' into this 'behavoir'. That is totally bogus, with so many counter-examples that I'm suprised such a claim is even made these days. I did not have a distant father or overbaring mother, I was never molested, and never had the influence of gay people in my life during my 'formative years'. Until I was 15 I thought I was the only one with these feelings in the whole world. It was very difficult. Nobody converted me or coerced me. Once I accepted who and what I was, it was easy to look back on my life and see how much now made sense... I was a gay kid, a gay adolescent, and am now a gay adult. I was never straight, heterosexual, or anything else.
I don't KNOW that people are 'born' gay... I do know that ones position along the spectrum of sexual orientation is pretty much fixed at a realtively early time, and most scientists who study the matter agree. I'm guessing it might have to do with hormone levels in untero at specific developmental times. But that's just my hypothesis. There does seem to be a genetic component. And the 'sexual abuse' argument is speecious. Lots of people are sexually abused without 'turning queer'. It could be completely incidental... children are molested, some of them come out as gay later in life, most do not. I think you're presuming a cause-and-effect relationship that doesn't have much evidence to support it.
And I'm always curious about this sinister 'gay agenda' that everyone's talking about. No gay person I've ever met has ever seen a copy. The only 'agenda' gay people have, as far as I know adn am aware, is to be treated fairly and equally under civil law, and to be treated with respect and dignity as human beings and fellow citizens. Our relationships are just as deserving of respect as relationships between athiests, people who are barren or sterile, etc. We do not deserved to be fired for who we love, or beaten to death for who we love.
The only thing I really want ot get out of my system is to have you look at the sources and resources I posted earlier, that cover this topic. I think they contain a wealth of information on the true and defensible positions of both sides. And really, I'm not here to debate theology at all. I'm just here to say that not everyone follows your (or my) specific theology, and therefore, such theological matters should not be codified into civil law that governs everyone. That pretty much sums up my point.
And I'm not the only one that feels he's a few short of a six-pack upstairs. It's not so much that he's stupid, but that he utterly lacks any intellectual curiosity, and is totally apathetic about it. Here are some other people (including republicans) that agree. (note, the above link might not be valid after today... if not, click on the 'It's the stupidity, stupid' link on that page)
So, by insisting that gay people don't have a right to "sodomy" (that is, the expression of sexual desire with their romantic partner), then you feel government should get involved in approving relationships.
Say, what about that guy who is dating that ugly chick you find repulsive. Should the government step in and make sex between them illegal because it makes you uncomfortable? Should they be banned from kissing on TV, or in public, lest it offend your delicate sensibilities?
Some guys like guys, some girls like girls, some girls and guys like both girls and guys. It's a pretty simple concept to understand.
Yes, it is simple. But the part you fail to grasp is that these people don't just decide or choose to become 'sexual deviants' -- any more than a left handed person is just a right handed person who woke up one day and decided to rebel by being left-handed. It's a part of their nature, and as such, it isn't 'deviant' to THEM.
And homophobia doesn't mean you're afraid of homosexuals, but that you're afraid of homosexuality. You're fear being exposed to it, worried that it might be 'catching', that it might SPREAD if, god forbid, the government didn't crack down and make it illegal and persecute it. That if the government treated homosexuals as human beings with equal civil rights, some sort of disaster would transpire. I'll admit it's a bit of a misnomer, but it all boils down to the same issue: ignorant bigotry. You think you're superior, morally and otherwise, and you want special treatment in the eyes of the government for that (in the form of the government 'sanctioning' your relationships and your sexuality). And it makes you feel better to look down upon others as less-than-human (well, unless their infants... I wonder how you'd feel about aborting gay fetuses, hrm?).
Why is it so agonizing? Because they know that it's a person that they're killing.
No, it's a POTENTIAL human that they have to decide whether or not to allow to become realized.
Do you honestly think that condemning a child to a life of being unwanted, unloved, and resented is better than terminating a pregnancy in the first trimester? How are you prepared to deal with the flood of unwanted children should your absolutist policy of government intervention be adopted? Are you prepared to let gay couples adopt to take up the slack? I mean, there aren't enough couples to adopt all the needy, unwanted, abused, and homeless children TODAY...
And you're saying it's OK to murder a defenseless child just because he was conceived during rape or incest??? You think that's consistent with the rest of your rhetoric?
What about RU-486? The 'morning after pill'? What if it's taken within the week of conception, maybe even before the egg has implanted? How is that any different than a miscarriage? How is that a 'murder', if the only thing lost is a microscopic group of nearly undifferentiated cells?
How would your banning of abortion deal with all the gray areas, all the areas of disagreement (like when exactly 'life' begins... you claim it's at conception, unless that conception was the result of rape or incest or something weird like that... other cultures don't believe it begins until birth... and people like me believe it begins at the point of measurable brain-wave activity and/or viability).
And from your final statement, you'd aparently try to jail any woman who attempted to get an abortion I guess. Would this be grandfathered? All women who have ever gotten an abortion would be crowded into prisons if you were elected? Remember, be consistent here!
You've OBVIOUSLY never listened to both of them for any length of time. I can't believe you actually believe this.
And you keep putting words in my mouth. I never suggested Gore was any Abraham Lincoln. He's a barely passable candidate. But at least he does pass the basic requirements. I contend, quite strongly, that Bush does not. Based on experience and ability to ARTICULATE. Gore was medicore but did work to better himself. And when it comes to techincal issues, he can mop the floor with Bush any day. I wonder if Bush is like his dad, and has never seen a grocery store scanner... Anyway, Bush is mediocre, and has basically coasted on personality.
I'm not saying Gore is a perfect candidate -- far from it. I'm saying quite the opposite. But I'm also saying that Bush is a significantly WORSE candidate in MOST respects (not all, obviously).
Ever heard of NAMBLA? Am I to assume that you're just as much in favor as their right to the pursuit of happiness?
AHH, the NAMBLA card. Yee haw. Gonna bring up beastiality next? It's so predictable (and predictably illogical). There's no form of conscent involved in child/adult or animal/adult relationships. On the other hand, what two consenting adults do shouldn't be regulated by the government. And if two people love and care for each other, how exactly is this a BAD thing?
I'm not the one who has a problem.
Yeah you are. It's called homophobia. You want other people to be forced to change their behavoir to fit your comfort level regarding something that doesn't even involve or affect you. You want your narrow views forced on everyone else. You don't understand homosexuality, so you want it banned. You are the one with the problem, and you should seek to remedy that situation. Someone you know and care about is gay... you just probably don't know it.
I'd sacrifice the "right" to sodomy and infanticide if it means preserving my right to free speech and self defense.
How big of you to sacrifice MY rights for your own comfort. And last I heard, embryos and fetuses weren't infants. And would you REALLY give up ever getting a blowjob ever again, or ever going down on a woman ever again? If the government legislated ONLY missionary position, you'd think that was cool? And how does my being able to engage in my relationships legally (since I'm going to anyway, since by nature I am same-sex oriented) in any way abridge your right to free speech and self-defense? It DOESN'T.
The big difference is that Gore is technically literate (Bush isn't), and Gore is articulate (Bush isn't). Note that I was stating how dumb Bush really is (and he really is)... I wasn't espousing how amazingly smart Gore was. I wouldn't do that. He does, however, have a much deeper grasp of just about any specific issue than Bush ever will. I think this is a good thing for the most part, otherw will legitimately disagree and bring up issues of potential micromanagement.
I am hardly a 'media sheep'. But I'm loathe to have such an inarticulate, confused, befuddled, mushy-brained individual in charge of the most powerful office in the free world. If nothing else, it's embarassing. Hell, I'm horrified that even Bush is mocking his own illiteracy and his own lack of any sort of real grasp of serious issues in speeches and stuff. It's like voting Homer Simpson for president over Richard Grimes. Gore, like Grimes, is annoying, but he's worked hard and he's competent. Bush, like Homer, hasn't ever worked for a damn thing in his life, skates through life, and is really kinda clueless.
Unfortunately, people go for Homer over Grimes every time. It's all part of the dumbing-down of America. We're going to get a president that truely reflects us, and it's just pretty damn scary, imho.
So then you can have all of the sodomy you want as long as you can find a willing woman? That is the same deal that I get. The fact that you may not want a woman is immaterial.
It makes ALL the difference in the world. In states with homo-only sodomy laws, YOU can perform all the sodomy WITH THE PERSON OF YOUR CHOICE that you wish, but a gay person cannot legally do the same thing ('same thing' here INCLUDES the phrase 'with the person of their choice').
What you're advocating is the exact same thing as saying that laws against writing left-handed are fine, because left-handed people can just write with their right-hand, just like can, and thus the law is fair and just and applied equally. Of course, that's total bullcrap. It's totally unfair to the left-handed person to expect them to go against their nature. Ditto with gay people.
And you didn't address the primary issues of why I think the government shouldn't get into the abortion determining business: the fact that it's not a black and white, simplistic issue. You didn't address the questions about rape, incest, or danger to the life of the mother. The fact is, from conception to some point after that, the blastula/embryo is little more than a parasite. If the woman has a miscarriage, should she be sent to prision for murder? I mean, are you drawing a huge distinction between her BODY terminating the pregnancy, and her MIND doing so (by choosing abortion?)
Abortion is an agonizing decision for any woman. It's not like millions of women are just light-heartedly terminating pregnancies right and left. Its a huge and personal issue. And you can ban them all you want, but all that will do is lead to illegal back-alley abortions and lots of mutilated and dead young women. You really think that's better? I sentence you to watch "The Cider House Rules" over and over until you get a clue that the issue isn't as simple as you claim it is.
Airport Tycoon has got to make the list of top ten worst games this year. Ugh. What a horrible waste of money.
Awful graphics, awful game-play, awful tutorial, awful manual, awful user interface, TONS of bugs...
But the worst thing? The awful waste of what looked to be an awesome concept. Man, if they had made it on the level of playability and usability of something like SimCity or TransportTycoon, it woulda been an awsome game. A real opportunity lost.
Here's a link to a review of the game. In my opinion, the review is much too kind. I wiped it off my disk and threw the CD, box, and 'manual' in the dumpster. First time I've EVER done that with a game.
Utter crap. Stay away. (For the record, the game's original name was "Airport Mogul" in the UK, and aparently it was just bought, repackaged, and renamed with no attempt to actually have the new name reflected in the software, installer, or even in parts of the manual... totally sloppy and slip-shod).
Can you show me a source for GW favoring making it illegal for a man to love another man?
I gave you the source: The Texas Sodomy Law. He is on public record as supporting the law, and fighting the law's repeal. Two men were jailed (albeit briefly) under this law not too long ago, which is what brought it up to challenge in the courts. The courts invalidated the law, but Bush is fighting and appealing.
The budget surplus that Gore's looking to spend on the geezers relies upon a projected increase in the economy. In order to have the money in the first place, the economy has to GROW!
First off, Bush is spending a lot on Geezers too. The main difference is the way education is targed by Gore's tax cuts v.s. the 'across the board' tax cut of three times the size by Bush. Additionally, Gore reserves a portion of the alleged surplus just incase that surplus doesn't materialize, while GWB has already 'given it away' even if it doesn't materialize. Finally, the economy is booming as it is, and will certainly continue to grow under Gore's plan. GWB's plan might over-stimulate the economy, leading to rises in interest rates and a falling stock market. And poof, there goes the money you just got back via your tax break, in the form of paying higher interest and lower investment income from stocks.
I hate to be the one to tell you, but you don't have a right to sodomy.
YOU have a right to it, why don't I? Remember, Sodomy includes oral sex (only in the Texas law, the wording specifically states that only sodomy between same sex partners is illegal... this is the reason it was invalidated, because it violates the equal protection clause... what is legal for me should be legal for you). And besides, Republicans are SUPPOSED to be for more LIMITED government -- I do not like even the IDEA of a government body legislating what i can do in the privacy of my own bedroom with another conscenting adult. Does this thought make YOU all warm and fuzzy? That the goverment might try (as they did in Georgia for a long time) to dictate that ONLY 'missionary' position is legal? No thanks. I'll vote for someone who's interested in getting the government's nose out of my bedroom, thanks.
To choose murder? That's why he gets my vote.
A typically overly simplistic spewing of dogma. The real issue is vastly more complex than that. What about cases of rape or incest? What if the mother's life is in danger? What if it's in the first few weeks, when the "fetus" is little more than a microscopic group of cells? This is also a religious issue, with different religions having different opinions of when exactly the developing embryo can be considered 'human'. Science is no real help here... all it can do is come up with an average point of 'viability', where if delivered, the child has a decent chance of surviving. Personally, I don't want a government to be legislating based on OPINION or religious dogma. I'm all for banning abortion after the point of viability, but prior to that, it's between a woman, her doctor, and her god, and the government really shouldn't have any say in it. There are too many opinions on this one to come up with a strict, absolute, cut-and-dried rule that works in all situations. Why can't Bush's claim to "Trust the people to do the right thing" with their tax money be applied to 'trust the people to do the right thing' with regards to abortion?
Freedom of religion is not the same as freedom from religion. Do you ask Jewish people not to wear certain articles of head covering when they're in your presence? Would you ask me to cover the Hex on my chest if we were swimming at the same public pool? Would you ask a muslim woman to remove that silly little veil so that you can see who you're talking to?
Of course not. But I WOULD expect that jewish, muslim, christian, satanist, pagan, etc., dogma NOT be enshrined in LAW, thus FORCING me to obey said dogma. In my religion, loving same-sex relationships are just fine; abortion is up to the woman to decide up until the point of viability; it's totally cool to work, play, and buy liquer on every day of the week; etc. The government should have no business enforcing religious dogma such as criminalizing or penalizing same-sex relationships (because some religions find them 'sinful'), or enforcing the holding of the sabbath, etc. The government shouldn't force ME to wear certain head coverings, force YOU to cover the Hex on your chest, or force my mom to wear a veil. The government should allow the free practice of religion. And this IMPLIES the ability to be free FROM religion if that is one's choice. I should not be forced to kowtow to your god, and you should not be forced to kowtow to mine. It's really a simple concept...
And you obviously don't remember 1990/91 very well. We were in the grips of a recession. Interest rates were high, unemployment was high... OH, and you don't have any 'right' to not be exposed to same-sex kisses, for the record (any more than I have a 'right' to not be exposed to opposite-sex kisses). Anyway, those too years were anything BUT 'the good old days'.
First of all, he's not only really dim witted and stupid, he's woefully unqualified to hold the highest and most powerful office in the free world.
Beyond that, there are his ties with the religious right, that threaten the freedom of everyone who is non-Christian, or 'unapproved' by Christians (such as gays).
He's very anti-gay (fighting to keep the Texas Sodomy Law on the books, for example), which represents a direct threat to my personal civil liberties.
He's fiscally irresponsible, given his promise to throw the surplus back at rich people who aren't hurting for the money, and not concentrating on paying down the debt, or more carefully 'targeting' the tax-cut so as not to over-stimulate the economy, etc., etc.
He's inarticulate and really inexperienced in foreign affairs... do you really want this guy who can't even prounce words in his own Mother Tongue in sensitive negotations with other countries?
He represents a switch back to the ways of the past... with the potential to roll back hard-won freedoms in the areas of gay civil rights, a woman's right to choose, freedom of (and from) religious expression in public life, etc... he'd rely almost exclusively on the same advisors his dad used (in a few cases that's not so bad, but in most it is)... and really, do you want to go back to the state this country was in in 1990/91?
And as for integrety, Bush is every bit as vunerable on that as Gore is. He's lied (or mistated) just as much. What about his AWOL time in Alabama (where he never reported to duty), and he has no idea where he was for that time, and can't answer any questions about it? How about that Texas 'patients bill of rights' he takes credit for, when the reality is that he fought it tooth-and-nail the entire way?
And then there's the whole environmental issue. And the way he coddles corporations. He wants to give them practically free liscense to do anything they want (even ignore Clean air/water acts if they so choose), and he wants to remove the ability of individual consumers to sue 'big companies' for damages in such cases.
As far as I'm concerned, George W. Bush represents a direct and real theat to my own personal freedoms and even my existance.
I was actually only refering to the voting SYSTEM (system of counting votes), not the greater political system. Sorry if that was unclear.
The problem is adequately described and discussed in the current issue of Discover Magazine. But basicaly, the problem is that the current US Voting method allows 'paradoxes', and allows the guy that most people DON'T want to get into office to win.
Imagine three candidates: A, B, and C. Now imagine that 30% of the voting public likes A best, B second, but hates C. Now imagine another 30% like B best, A, second, but hates C. The remaining 40% like C best, then A, then B.
The US voting system gives the election to C, even though 60% of the population like him the LEAST of all three candidates.
A *SANE* system would give the election to A, who has the most first and second place votes, and no last place votes.
Essentially it's a better system for matching the best candidate to the will of the people, and lets the people give a more complete representation of their views and desires. Giving just ONE vote for ONE candidate doesn't adequately allow a voter to express themselves when there are more than two candidates.
Well, except for that whole ease-of-use, intuitive thing. Like you're going to see any average business secretary firing up LaTeX and producing anything usable...
Um... MS hasn't changed their file formats for their various apps for several versions now. Educate thyself before spouting off. The only exception to this is Access, to which they added Unicode support, which *necessitated* a format change (but the newer version is still compatible with the older format).
Additionally, the latest versions added HTML/XML as a 'native' file format for saving documents.
"If that's the worst you can come up with, I think I rest my case."
Not hardly. There's the whole patients bill of rights thing in Texas... the one he fought hard against, didn't sign and let become law without his signature, that he's now taking credit for. Not only that, he's taking credit for the one aspect he fought the hardest: that patients could sue HMOs. Bush, in general, stands for corporate freedom, not individual freedom. Corporations get free reign, while individuals have no recourse in his perfect world. He scares me a lot in that area.
And as for his intellectual capacity, regardless of how you may revile salon, this article seems to state my views rather well. This is not a man I really want in the white house, in a hugely powerful position, where critical thinking is an asset.
Now you are just taking out your ass.
No, I'm not. Bush will do whatever it takes to get elected. From crowing about legislation he fought (see above), to distancing himself from the religious right when expedient, to cozying up to it when expedient. He plays a mushy, wishy-washy middle-ground, trying to appear to be as many things as possible. It's easy for him not to flip-flop too many times, becuase he doesn't seem to take too strong a stand very often (and he certainly never argues specifics, as his brain seemingly just can't hold on to too many facts or figures). And as for Gore, some of his 'flip-flops' as you call them, are the result of growing and learning. True, some others are due entirely to political expediency -- I'm not arguing Gore is any better at this than most politicians I know. And as for Reagan, he was pretty empty cranially, but he at least had strong convictions and a 'vision', which Bush utterly lacks. And I've never met Quayle in person, but from every interview and debate I saw him in, everything I heard him say publicly, he came across as a dunderhead to me. Not as bad as Bush by a long shot (I'm not saying he was totally stupid by any means), but I don't have any great respect for him as a thinker. Maybe meeting him one-on-one would change my mind, but I haven't had that opportunity.
GWB doesn't maintain close ties with them either. Maybe you should ask yourself why you are afraid of them. Do you really think that the Bush administration is actually going to push legislation that restricts religious freedom?
I know EXACTLY why I'm afraid of them. I am a non-Christian, non-heterosexual male. Yes, I think Bush would push legislation that would restrict religious freedom, as well as my freedom in general. He's already DONE so here in Texas, staunchly defending the Texas sodomy law, and killing any legislation that attempts to treat gay people as equal citizens. And while he may not have firm ties to the Religious Right in the way other Republican Candidates might (the very intelligent and VERY scary Alan Keyes to name just one), he does feel the need to 'appease' them (speeches at Bob Jones university, refusing to meet with the Log Cabin Republican group, etc).
Now, the only issues that I agree with him on are environmental. But even on environmental issues, he talks but doesn't deliver.
Hrm. Check out Bush's environmental record for just two seconds, and I have to wonder how you can support him at all. Bush doesn't give two figs about the environment. Gore at least talks the talk most of the time, and walks the walk at least some of the time. Bush doesn't even really pretend to talk the talk. If this is your primary issue, vote for anyone but Bush. Please. Don't let him do to Alaska and the rest of the country what has been done to Texas. Ugh. He asked corporations to write their own regulations, and then made following those regulations 'voluntary'. Texas is one of the most polluted states (in every way) in the country. Gore will not be, by ANY means (on ANY issue) perfect... but he'll be a damn sight better than Bush on major issues like the environment, in technology and the information economy, and understanding all the issues involved (and more importantly, the consequences of the decisions he makes). Gore will do better in standing against religious conservatives more strongly than Bush, preserving not only religious freedom (and freedom from religion for those who aren't Christian fundamentalists), as well as in preserving and maintaining equal civil rights for all individuals across the board.
Frankly, I wish we could ask for a shuffle and re-deal. I'd take McCain and Colin Powel over Bush too. I'd take Jesse Ventura over any of the current crop, to tell the truth, and that's just sad. But of the limited choices available, Bush scares me on more fronts than Gore does.
That's a classic line of conservative desperation:-)
Let's take Bush's AWOL experience. Bush cannot account for nearly a YEAR, when he was supposed to be in Alabama. There is no record.
Gore's internet claim was, as I originaly read it, quite accurate. He NEVER claimed to have invented the internet, period. This is not revisionist history.
I either remember the original statements clearly, or I did do the research. Bush lied his ass off in the debate about THREE guys going to death for the Byrd dragging death, when it was only two. And as for the 'Quaylesque' gaffs, this comforts you? The fact that the man cannot pronounce simple words, string together simple sentences, or speak coherently in his own mother tongue? That he seems to have memorized plattitudes and sound-bites, but shows no real depth of understanding to back them up?
Reagan WAS not all that bright, and relied on his advisors a lot, and barely seemed to know what country he was in, and thought trees caused pollution. Quayle *was* a pretty big idiot. Bush Sr. was slightly more intelligent, but was still so incoherent when it came to speaking it was almost scary (never mind throwing up all over the Japanese Prime Minister). And Dubbya Shrub is probably the dumbest one of all. It's not insulting his intelligence to state and obvious fact that ANYONE listening to the debates could fiture out. He was parotting without a depth of understanding, his answers in subsequent debates were very close to duplicates (word for word) with anwers in earlier debates. He couldn't defend himself on the facts, and always resorted to 'character' or changing the subject.
You think Gore will say anything to get elected? Have you listened to Bush at all? He's every bit as bad. In this area, neither one can claim superiority at all, period.
People I know who are for a lot of the positions Bush talks about are scared as shit that he'll actually become president... because he's such an obvious doofus. With scary religious-right influences (most of my friends value their religious freedoms, and not all of them are Christian, let alone the 'right kind' of Christian).
I'd love to see your proof of the pot/heroin/LSD allegations against Gore. I hadn't heard anything about heroin or LSD before, and am guessing you're making that up out of desperation and irrational Gore-phobia. Not sure what you're so scared of, seeing how far ahead the idiot Bush is. The American people will aparently get just what they deserve (and I'm from Texas, living in Austin, so I know what a fraud Bush is first-hand).
Gore does NOT think he invented it. Why do you perpetuate this piece of misinformation, except out of utter ignorance? Gore was instrumental in funding for the internet in early days, and getting the government up and on the web in later days. Gore is technically savvy, and without his efforts, we wouldn't be where we are today. Period. There are plenty of articles debunking the taken-out-of-context, mis-quoted urban legend regarding Gore thinking he 'invented the internet'. He never said any such thing. He is not actually delusional in any way. What he originally said was accurate. You've just swallowed the line created by ignorant reporters and spin-masters from Gore's opponents.
No, but you can pay it down from the outrageously high level it is at right now, so that you don't need to set aside so much of the budget (OUR TAXES) to pay the interest on that debt.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm assuming 'improved type handling' in the context of programming, would have to do with the .Net stuff, and the vastly improved type libraries and ability to 'discover' types on the fly.
But the phrase could also refer to the inclusion of ClearType for LCD screens, to provide improved type display.
Nothing like ambiguous terminology, eh?
- Spryguy
By the way, I did listen to the sermon. One troubling bit:
... and maybe see that even though some of us don't follow your Christ into your God's Grace, we still deserve the respect of the law, and we're still happy and producive members of society.
... I just don't buy it. It makes more sense (given the actual facts and research) that homosexuality is caused by hormone levels in utero during crucial stages of development mixed with genetic predispositions and other causes. But I don't KNOW that, it just seems to fit the data to my understanding. Homosexuality isn't a psychological disease or mental disorder.
The equation of homosexuality with 'flaming, dressed up as a woman' stuff. Almost no gay men I know dress up in drag or are overly effeminate. Sure, some are. But there's this stupid stereotype that all homosexuals are alike... mincing, lispy, wimpy, effeminate, drag queens who live to dance and party and have sex.
That's true of a few, to be sure. But not for most. If you were to see me on the street, or anywhere else, you wouldn't "spot" me as a gay person. Or most of my friends, for that matter. I think if you saw how normal most of us are, and how valid and loving our relationships can be, you'd be a little more forgiving
Homosexuality doesn't equate with promiscuity... though obviously there is that aspect (just as there is for heterosexuality). If you wish to stand against promiscuity, that's fine... but don't single out gay people. Gay people can form moral, just, monogamous relationships too... and in the face of all of society's condemnation too!
Also, the theory that homosexuality is soley caused by something 'missing'
As I've listened to your sermon, I do hope you'd look at and read the resources I linked you to earlier in this thread.
- Spryguy
When I said that there cannot be a middle ground here, you misunderstood what I was talking about--we cannot both be happy with the state of marriage at the same time.
;-)
Sure we can. Why not? You have your ideas of marriage, and I have mine. Your church consecrates your marriage, and not mine (fine with both of us), and the state grants my long-term monogamous relationship the same tax/property/etc rights as yours (you may not be happy, but why should you care? Why NOT be happy that I'm happy and protected in the case of calamity?)
It is unfortunate that parts of the church have further muddied the water around this issue and support gay marriage, but this is not a real union in the eyes of God. His plan is quite simple; one man, one women in a lifelong commitment--no amount of semantic postulating will change this.
Yes, yes, this is YOUR churches interpretation of YOUR bible and YOUR God's word and desire and plan. Other churches (even Christian churches) have different views (again see references I directed you towards earlier in this conversation). And others believe in different gods, or no gods at all. Oh, and I never stated that I do not believe in God. I've simply used lots of examples from various religions to help make my point: my friends are a diverse group with diverse beliefs. My beliefs do not directly coincide with yours, obviously. And my point with bringing up athiests, hindus, unitarians, agnostics, etc., is that your beliefs should not trump OUR beliefs in the arena of civil law.
However, if I were you, I wouldn't presume to go around telling people what their beliefs mean.
Interestinly, I'm not doing that: you are. You are saying your personal beliefs should be codified into law and then forced onto me. I am NOT saying that my beliefs should be forced on to you.
Do you know there are a lot of people who call themselves Christian and really aren't?
Sure, but as you state, which is which is not really for you or me to know... you could be on the wrong side just as easily as my devout Christian gay friends. Only God can say, and then only if the Christian God you worship is the one true god (if not, the Hindu god Shiva might just chuckle at your naivity
Don't take my opposition to gay marriage as persecution.
How can I not? Because of your religion, you wish to deny me over 1047 federal legal rights and responsibilities, just because you don't approve of who I love and plan to build my life with. You make a judgement that my love and relationship isn't worthy of any legal protections based soley on my 'status' and the 'status' of my partner -- not on us as individual human beings -- and wish to have your religious convictions codified into law to prevent me from enjoying the civil rights you take for granted.
However, I do have a moral obligation to do my best to prevent society from deciding an immoral thing is okay. That doesn't mean I will always succeed, but to do otherwise would be going against my faith.
So I think you'd best be getting out there and getting laws passed to prevent anyone from working on a Sunday. That's an abomination. And you had better get campaigning to get shellfish off all menus, and to ban the use of two fibers in any cloth. And the Bible says quite clearly that it's okay to sell women into slavery, so better be working to make that legal.
My POINT in this, which you seem to keep missing, is that you idea of 'morality' is very arbitrary, and does not match everyone elses (or even most people's). We have a FREE country with religious freedom written right into our consitition. This implies a separation of Church and State, and dictates that civil law be concerned with ETHICS, and that MORALITY be left to an individual's church. It is against the law to murder because doing so infringes on the rights and freedoms of someone else. Assult, theft, etc., are all illegal for the same reasons. My right to throw a punch ends at your nose, and vice-versa. So how does my having a civil union affect or harm you in any measurable way? It doesn't. And by all logic and ethical standards, two same sex partners who love each other and are comitted to each other, should be allowed to have the same legal protections as any two opposite sex partners. The union of two people provides a more stable unit than a single (or any multiple beyond two), and serves as a benefit to society over all.
In short, to fulfill your 'moral obligation', you are free to try and talk same-sex couples OUT of getting married (and they're free to ignore you if you do so), but you are NOT free to ban them or physically/legally prevent them from joining in a union that is supported by their families, belief systems, church, etc. That is just not right... unless you avoid hypocricy by condeming ANY 'civil union' granted by the government, including civil marriage between heterosexual couples. In otherwords, the government should provide the same benefits and services to all their citizens.
- Spryguy
Whoa, cool, for a minute there I thought you were talking about Harry Browne.
Harry Browne wouldn't propose legislation that would prevent consumers from suing companies for things like environmental disasters, etc. Harry Browne would be, I think, more for corporations and individuals taking responsibility for their actions... unlike Bush.
- Spryguy
The problem is, there is no middle ground here. Either this country supports your worldview, or mine. Either marriage will be Holy Matrimony, or it will be a legal union between two people--but it cannot be both.
Of course it can be both. It already is both. And of course there's middle ground... only an extremist would say otherwise.
The fact is, what is called "marriage" is actually TWO institutions. There is the religious "marriage" which takes place in a church, and is holy before the eyes of God (whichever god the particular religion worships). Then there is 'civil' marriage. This is prepresented by the legal document signed by the couple. This is entirely separate and independant of religious marriage. You can have a 'church wedding' without making it 'legal', and you can have a 'civil wedding' without ever stepping foot in a church or beliving in any particular God.
If you acknowledge these simple facts (and you have to, since I have 'married' heterosexual friends who have done one, the other, or both), then clearly you can see that your assertion that 'it cannot be both' is wrong. Utterly and completely.
Gay people can ALREADY get married in churches. They do all the time. I've had several gay friends (of the Catholic, Reform Jewish, and Unitarian faiths in particular) get marred in lavish ceremonies before the eyes of their God, in a church, presided over by a ministor/pastor/priest/rabbi (whichever is appropriate to the specific religion involved). NOBODY is asking any church to violate its beliefs or perform marriages it doesn't support. NOBODY. I know of no gay person or straight person who thinks that any religion should be compelled to marry anyone it doesn't wish to. Period. This is what freedom of religion is all about. Some churches refuse to perform interfaith marriages, others refuse to perform interracial marriages, etc. That's fine. That is there right.
It's the second part that gays are asking for: civil marriage. The piece of paper. The part that confers all the legal property rights, hospital visitation rights, immigration rights, tax rights, insurance rights, decision making rights, etc. Recognizing same-sex relationships in this way does not in any way weaken or lessen "marriage" as you know it. It does not in any way threaten straight relationships or marriages. It just means that gay couples would have the same rights (and responsibilities!) as straight couples under civil law. This would be especially important, imho, if children are involved (and lots of gay couples have children, either from previous relationships, conceived using artificial insemination or surrogacy, or through adoption). I would think that at the very least, you'd support these civil rights to protect the children and their interests, if nothing else. Even if you don't agree same-sex couples should HAVE children, that isn't going to change, especially when one of the parents is a biological parent.
In my view, civil marriage doesn't hurt you or anyone else, and helps the partners and children of same-sex spouses.
And beyond that, several countries already have same-sex marriages on the books (Netherlands, Norway, Sweeden, Denmark) as well as civil unions (France and soon Canada, among others). No civilization has fallen. There has been no breakdown of "the family". The sky has not fallen. There have been no significant costs. And in fact, gay bashing and violence against gays (never high in those countries to begin with) has decreased. That's a good thing too, no? And there has been no 'surge' in the number of homosexuals either, no 'conversions' from straight-to-gay, or anything of that nature either.
I would think the facts and examples would speak for themselves. Can you see the middle ground now? You can safely ignore same sex marriages if you wish (though you can't LEGALLY discriminate against same-sex couples in employment or business, which I would hope you wouldn't do anyway), and they just don't affect you. Can you provide me with a clear concise argument about why same-sex *civil* marriages WOULD threaten you, and why they SHOULD be illegal? Obviously, a religious argument would be inappropriate here.
I'd be curious to hear your response, because for the life of me, this is the one thing I simply cannot understand: If churches who don't allow interracial or interfaith marriages to occur, and who won't marry athiests at all allow these marriages to occur at the Justice Of the Peace and in civil courts, why not same-sex marriages? Nobody is asking them to agree with it, and nobody is compelling them to perform them, and I cannot fathom how they'd be negatively affected by the few people that would choose to partake of them, if offered. I'd love to hear a clear explaination.
- Spryguy
Ahah. So. Morning after pill is no problem. It's okay. So a day after conception, it isn't murder. How about two days? Four days? A week? Two weeks? Where is it, exactly, that you draw the line, and it suddenly becomes a heinous murder?
- Spryguy
While it is a behavior that can and is being changed in people...
This is mostly a load of malarky. There are no facts to back up that homosexuals 'can change' into heterosexuals. Even most of the so-called "ex-gays" have reverted over time to their natural ways. Most 'successful' conversions weren't homosexual to begin with... if pressed, they'll admit to being attracted to women the entire time, and that they're still attracted to men, they're just ignoring that. In short, they were bisexual, and now they're "back in the closet". When pressed for stats on successful conversion therapy figures, none of the so-called ex-gay ministries will reveal statistics. Many will admit that the success rate is VERY low, and even that requires a very broad definition of 'success'.
In short, it comes down to torturing people in many cases (electrodes on testicals, shock therapy, aversion therapy) and other classical conditioning methods, and even with that, the 'change' is not at all guarenteed or permanent. Many men who go through this are driven to suicide, their own self-loathing intensified. Many others find an inner strength through the program to come out of the closet again, as stronger and happier people -- but still gay.
Basically, I believe 'conversion' from true homosexuality to true heterosexuality is not possible, or even desirable. I know I TRIED to be 'straight' for many years, and I was absolutely miserable. Why? Because I was violateing my own nature. Once I came out, accepted myself for who and what i was, I became very peacful, happy, and productive.
Homosexuals do not get 'converted'. They don't get 'coerced' into this 'behavoir'. That is totally bogus, with so many counter-examples that I'm suprised such a claim is even made these days. I did not have a distant father or overbaring mother, I was never molested, and never had the influence of gay people in my life during my 'formative years'. Until I was 15 I thought I was the only one with these feelings in the whole world. It was very difficult. Nobody converted me or coerced me. Once I accepted who and what I was, it was easy to look back on my life and see how much now made sense... I was a gay kid, a gay adolescent, and am now a gay adult. I was never straight, heterosexual, or anything else.
I don't KNOW that people are 'born' gay... I do know that ones position along the spectrum of sexual orientation is pretty much fixed at a realtively early time, and most scientists who study the matter agree. I'm guessing it might have to do with hormone levels in untero at specific developmental times. But that's just my hypothesis. There does seem to be a genetic component. And the 'sexual abuse' argument is speecious. Lots of people are sexually abused without 'turning queer'. It could be completely incidental... children are molested, some of them come out as gay later in life, most do not. I think you're presuming a cause-and-effect relationship that doesn't have much evidence to support it.
And I'm always curious about this sinister 'gay agenda' that everyone's talking about. No gay person I've ever met has ever seen a copy. The only 'agenda' gay people have, as far as I know adn am aware, is to be treated fairly and equally under civil law, and to be treated with respect and dignity as human beings and fellow citizens. Our relationships are just as deserving of respect as relationships between athiests, people who are barren or sterile, etc. We do not deserved to be fired for who we love, or beaten to death for who we love.
The only thing I really want ot get out of my system is to have you look at the sources and resources I posted earlier, that cover this topic. I think they contain a wealth of information on the true and defensible positions of both sides. And really, I'm not here to debate theology at all. I'm just here to say that not everyone follows your (or my) specific theology, and therefore, such theological matters should not be codified into civil law that governs everyone. That pretty much sums up my point.
- Spryguy
More backing for my assertion he is inarticulate, inconsistant, and hypocritical:
This Slate Article
The only time he seems remotely articulate is when he's well rehearsed, and reading from a tele-prompter.
- Spryguy
Here's another reason why I have no respect for GWB:
He's Inconsistant and Hypocritical.
And I'm not the only one that feels he's a few short of a six-pack upstairs. It's not so much that he's stupid, but that he utterly lacks any intellectual curiosity, and is totally apathetic about it. Here are some other people (including republicans) that agree. (note, the above link might not be valid after today... if not, click on the 'It's the stupidity, stupid' link on that page)
- Spryguy
There is none so blind as him who will not see.
This applies doubly to you, my dear good sir.
So, by insisting that gay people don't have a right to "sodomy" (that is, the expression of sexual desire with their romantic partner), then you feel government should get involved in approving relationships.
Say, what about that guy who is dating that ugly chick you find repulsive. Should the government step in and make sex between them illegal because it makes you uncomfortable? Should they be banned from kissing on TV, or in public, lest it offend your delicate sensibilities?
Some guys like guys, some girls like girls, some girls and guys like both girls and guys. It's a pretty simple concept to understand.
Yes, it is simple. But the part you fail to grasp is that these people don't just decide or choose to become 'sexual deviants' -- any more than a left handed person is just a right handed person who woke up one day and decided to rebel by being left-handed. It's a part of their nature, and as such, it isn't 'deviant' to THEM.
And homophobia doesn't mean you're afraid of homosexuals, but that you're afraid of homosexuality. You're fear being exposed to it, worried that it might be 'catching', that it might SPREAD if, god forbid, the government didn't crack down and make it illegal and persecute it. That if the government treated homosexuals as human beings with equal civil rights, some sort of disaster would transpire. I'll admit it's a bit of a misnomer, but it all boils down to the same issue: ignorant bigotry. You think you're superior, morally and otherwise, and you want special treatment in the eyes of the government for that (in the form of the government 'sanctioning' your relationships and your sexuality). And it makes you feel better to look down upon others as less-than-human (well, unless their infants... I wonder how you'd feel about aborting gay fetuses, hrm?).
- Spryguy
Why is it so agonizing? Because they know that it's a person that they're killing.
No, it's a POTENTIAL human that they have to decide whether or not to allow to become realized.
Do you honestly think that condemning a child to a life of being unwanted, unloved, and resented is better than terminating a pregnancy in the first trimester? How are you prepared to deal with the flood of unwanted children should your absolutist policy of government intervention be adopted? Are you prepared to let gay couples adopt to take up the slack? I mean, there aren't enough couples to adopt all the needy, unwanted, abused, and homeless children TODAY...
And you're saying it's OK to murder a defenseless child just because he was conceived during rape or incest??? You think that's consistent with the rest of your rhetoric?
What about RU-486? The 'morning after pill'? What if it's taken within the week of conception, maybe even before the egg has implanted? How is that any different than a miscarriage? How is that a 'murder', if the only thing lost is a microscopic group of nearly undifferentiated cells?
How would your banning of abortion deal with all the gray areas, all the areas of disagreement (like when exactly 'life' begins... you claim it's at conception, unless that conception was the result of rape or incest or something weird like that... other cultures don't believe it begins until birth... and people like me believe it begins at the point of measurable brain-wave activity and/or viability).
And from your final statement, you'd aparently try to jail any woman who attempted to get an abortion I guess. Would this be grandfathered? All women who have ever gotten an abortion would be crowded into prisons if you were elected? Remember, be consistent here!
- Spryguy
"He is no more articulate than Bush..."
You've OBVIOUSLY never listened to both of them for any length of time. I can't believe you actually believe this.
And you keep putting words in my mouth. I never suggested Gore was any Abraham Lincoln. He's a barely passable candidate. But at least he does pass the basic requirements. I contend, quite strongly, that Bush does not. Based on experience and ability to ARTICULATE. Gore was medicore but did work to better himself. And when it comes to techincal issues, he can mop the floor with Bush any day. I wonder if Bush is like his dad, and has never seen a grocery store scanner... Anyway, Bush is mediocre, and has basically coasted on personality.
I'm not saying Gore is a perfect candidate -- far from it. I'm saying quite the opposite. But I'm also saying that Bush is a significantly WORSE candidate in MOST respects (not all, obviously).
- Spryguy
Ever heard of NAMBLA? Am I to assume that you're just as much in favor as their right to the pursuit of happiness?
AHH, the NAMBLA card. Yee haw. Gonna bring up beastiality next? It's so predictable (and predictably illogical). There's no form of conscent involved in child/adult or animal/adult relationships. On the other hand, what two consenting adults do shouldn't be regulated by the government. And if two people love and care for each other, how exactly is this a BAD thing?
I'm not the one who has a problem.
Yeah you are. It's called homophobia. You want other people to be forced to change their behavoir to fit your comfort level regarding something that doesn't even involve or affect you. You want your narrow views forced on everyone else. You don't understand homosexuality, so you want it banned. You are the one with the problem, and you should seek to remedy that situation. Someone you know and care about is gay... you just probably don't know it.
I'd sacrifice the "right" to sodomy and infanticide if it means preserving my right to free speech and self defense.
How big of you to sacrifice MY rights for your own comfort. And last I heard, embryos and fetuses weren't infants. And would you REALLY give up ever getting a blowjob ever again, or ever going down on a woman ever again? If the government legislated ONLY missionary position, you'd think that was cool? And how does my being able to engage in my relationships legally (since I'm going to anyway, since by nature I am same-sex oriented) in any way abridge your right to free speech and self-defense? It DOESN'T.
- Spryguy
The big difference is that Gore is technically literate (Bush isn't), and Gore is articulate (Bush isn't). Note that I was stating how dumb Bush really is (and he really is)... I wasn't espousing how amazingly smart Gore was. I wouldn't do that. He does, however, have a much deeper grasp of just about any specific issue than Bush ever will. I think this is a good thing for the most part, otherw will legitimately disagree and bring up issues of potential micromanagement.
I am hardly a 'media sheep'. But I'm loathe to have such an inarticulate, confused, befuddled, mushy-brained individual in charge of the most powerful office in the free world. If nothing else, it's embarassing. Hell, I'm horrified that even Bush is mocking his own illiteracy and his own lack of any sort of real grasp of serious issues in speeches and stuff. It's like voting Homer Simpson for president over Richard Grimes. Gore, like Grimes, is annoying, but he's worked hard and he's competent. Bush, like Homer, hasn't ever worked for a damn thing in his life, skates through life, and is really kinda clueless.
Unfortunately, people go for Homer over Grimes every time. It's all part of the dumbing-down of America. We're going to get a president that truely reflects us, and it's just pretty damn scary, imho.
- Spryguy
So then you can have all of the sodomy you want as long as you can find a willing woman? That is the same deal that I get. The fact that you may not want a woman is immaterial.
It makes ALL the difference in the world. In states with homo-only sodomy laws, YOU can perform all the sodomy WITH THE PERSON OF YOUR CHOICE that you wish, but a gay person cannot legally do the same thing ('same thing' here INCLUDES the phrase 'with the person of their choice').
What you're advocating is the exact same thing as saying that laws against writing left-handed are fine, because left-handed people can just write with their right-hand, just like can, and thus the law is fair and just and applied equally. Of course, that's total bullcrap. It's totally unfair to the left-handed person to expect them to go against their nature. Ditto with gay people.
And you didn't address the primary issues of why I think the government shouldn't get into the abortion determining business: the fact that it's not a black and white, simplistic issue. You didn't address the questions about rape, incest, or danger to the life of the mother. The fact is, from conception to some point after that, the blastula/embryo is little more than a parasite. If the woman has a miscarriage, should she be sent to prision for murder? I mean, are you drawing a huge distinction between her BODY terminating the pregnancy, and her MIND doing so (by choosing abortion?)
Abortion is an agonizing decision for any woman. It's not like millions of women are just light-heartedly terminating pregnancies right and left. Its a huge and personal issue. And you can ban them all you want, but all that will do is lead to illegal back-alley abortions and lots of mutilated and dead young women. You really think that's better? I sentence you to watch "The Cider House Rules" over and over until you get a clue that the issue isn't as simple as you claim it is.
- Spryguy
Airport Tycoon has got to make the list of top ten worst games this year. Ugh. What a horrible waste of money.
Awful graphics, awful game-play, awful tutorial, awful manual, awful user interface, TONS of bugs...
But the worst thing? The awful waste of what looked to be an awesome concept. Man, if they had made it on the level of playability and usability of something like SimCity or TransportTycoon, it woulda been an awsome game. A real opportunity lost.
Here's a link to a review of the game. In my opinion, the review is much too kind. I wiped it off my disk and threw the CD, box, and 'manual' in the dumpster. First time I've EVER done that with a game.
Utter crap. Stay away. (For the record, the game's original name was "Airport Mogul" in the UK, and aparently it was just bought, repackaged, and renamed with no attempt to actually have the new name reflected in the software, installer, or even in parts of the manual... totally sloppy and slip-shod).
- Spryguy
Can you show me a source for GW favoring making it illegal for a man to love another man?
I gave you the source: The Texas Sodomy Law. He is on public record as supporting the law, and fighting the law's repeal. Two men were jailed (albeit briefly) under this law not too long ago, which is what brought it up to challenge in the courts. The courts invalidated the law, but Bush is fighting and appealing.
The budget surplus that Gore's looking to spend on the geezers relies upon a projected increase in the economy. In order to have the money in the first place, the economy has to GROW!
First off, Bush is spending a lot on Geezers too. The main difference is the way education is targed by Gore's tax cuts v.s. the 'across the board' tax cut of three times the size by Bush. Additionally, Gore reserves a portion of the alleged surplus just incase that surplus doesn't materialize, while GWB has already 'given it away' even if it doesn't materialize. Finally, the economy is booming as it is, and will certainly continue to grow under Gore's plan. GWB's plan might over-stimulate the economy, leading to rises in interest rates and a falling stock market. And poof, there goes the money you just got back via your tax break, in the form of paying higher interest and lower investment income from stocks.
I hate to be the one to tell you, but you don't have a right to sodomy.
YOU have a right to it, why don't I? Remember, Sodomy includes oral sex (only in the Texas law, the wording specifically states that only sodomy between same sex partners is illegal... this is the reason it was invalidated, because it violates the equal protection clause... what is legal for me should be legal for you). And besides, Republicans are SUPPOSED to be for more LIMITED government -- I do not like even the IDEA of a government body legislating what i can do in the privacy of my own bedroom with another conscenting adult. Does this thought make YOU all warm and fuzzy? That the goverment might try (as they did in Georgia for a long time) to dictate that ONLY 'missionary' position is legal? No thanks. I'll vote for someone who's interested in getting the government's nose out of my bedroom, thanks.
To choose murder? That's why he gets my vote.
A typically overly simplistic spewing of dogma. The real issue is vastly more complex than that. What about cases of rape or incest? What if the mother's life is in danger? What if it's in the first few weeks, when the "fetus" is little more than a microscopic group of cells? This is also a religious issue, with different religions having different opinions of when exactly the developing embryo can be considered 'human'. Science is no real help here... all it can do is come up with an average point of 'viability', where if delivered, the child has a decent chance of surviving. Personally, I don't want a government to be legislating based on OPINION or religious dogma. I'm all for banning abortion after the point of viability, but prior to that, it's between a woman, her doctor, and her god, and the government really shouldn't have any say in it. There are too many opinions on this one to come up with a strict, absolute, cut-and-dried rule that works in all situations. Why can't Bush's claim to "Trust the people to do the right thing" with their tax money be applied to 'trust the people to do the right thing' with regards to abortion?
Freedom of religion is not the same as freedom from religion. Do you ask Jewish people not to wear certain articles of head covering when they're in your presence? Would you ask me to cover the Hex on my chest if we were swimming at the same public pool? Would you ask a muslim woman to remove that silly little veil so that you can see who you're talking to?
Of course not. But I WOULD expect that jewish, muslim, christian, satanist, pagan, etc., dogma NOT be enshrined in LAW, thus FORCING me to obey said dogma. In my religion, loving same-sex relationships are just fine; abortion is up to the woman to decide up until the point of viability; it's totally cool to work, play, and buy liquer on every day of the week; etc. The government should have no business enforcing religious dogma such as criminalizing or penalizing same-sex relationships (because some religions find them 'sinful'), or enforcing the holding of the sabbath, etc. The government shouldn't force ME to wear certain head coverings, force YOU to cover the Hex on your chest, or force my mom to wear a veil. The government should allow the free practice of religion. And this IMPLIES the ability to be free FROM religion if that is one's choice. I should not be forced to kowtow to your god, and you should not be forced to kowtow to mine. It's really a simple concept...
And you obviously don't remember 1990/91 very well. We were in the grips of a recession. Interest rates were high, unemployment was high... OH, and you don't have any 'right' to not be exposed to same-sex kisses, for the record (any more than I have a 'right' to not be exposed to opposite-sex kisses). Anyway, those too years were anything BUT 'the good old days'.
- Spryguy
This is easy.
First of all, he's not only really dim witted and stupid, he's woefully unqualified to hold the highest and most powerful office in the free world.
Beyond that, there are his ties with the religious right, that threaten the freedom of everyone who is non-Christian, or 'unapproved' by Christians (such as gays).
He's very anti-gay (fighting to keep the Texas Sodomy Law on the books, for example), which represents a direct threat to my personal civil liberties.
He's fiscally irresponsible, given his promise to throw the surplus back at rich people who aren't hurting for the money, and not concentrating on paying down the debt, or more carefully 'targeting' the tax-cut so as not to over-stimulate the economy, etc., etc.
He's inarticulate and really inexperienced in foreign affairs... do you really want this guy who can't even prounce words in his own Mother Tongue in sensitive negotations with other countries?
He represents a switch back to the ways of the past... with the potential to roll back hard-won freedoms in the areas of gay civil rights, a woman's right to choose, freedom of (and from) religious expression in public life, etc... he'd rely almost exclusively on the same advisors his dad used (in a few cases that's not so bad, but in most it is)... and really, do you want to go back to the state this country was in in 1990/91?
And as for integrety, Bush is every bit as vunerable on that as Gore is. He's lied (or mistated) just as much. What about his AWOL time in Alabama (where he never reported to duty), and he has no idea where he was for that time, and can't answer any questions about it? How about that Texas 'patients bill of rights' he takes credit for, when the reality is that he fought it tooth-and-nail the entire way?
And then there's the whole environmental issue. And the way he coddles corporations. He wants to give them practically free liscense to do anything they want (even ignore Clean air/water acts if they so choose), and he wants to remove the ability of individual consumers to sue 'big companies' for damages in such cases.
As far as I'm concerned, George W. Bush represents a direct and real theat to my own personal freedoms and even my existance.
- Spryguy
I was actually only refering to the voting SYSTEM (system of counting votes), not the greater political system. Sorry if that was unclear.
The problem is adequately described and discussed in the current issue of Discover Magazine. But basicaly, the problem is that the current US Voting method allows 'paradoxes', and allows the guy that most people DON'T want to get into office to win.
Imagine three candidates: A, B, and C. Now imagine that 30% of the voting public likes A best, B second, but hates C. Now imagine another 30% like B best, A, second, but hates C. The remaining 40% like C best, then A, then B.
The US voting system gives the election to C, even though 60% of the population like him the LEAST of all three candidates.
A *SANE* system would give the election to A, who has the most first and second place votes, and no last place votes.
Essentially it's a better system for matching the best candidate to the will of the people, and lets the people give a more complete representation of their views and desires. Giving just ONE vote for ONE candidate doesn't adequately allow a voter to express themselves when there are more than two candidates.
- Spryguy
Word 2000 still has nothing on LaTeX, IMO.
Well, except for that whole ease-of-use, intuitive thing. Like you're going to see any average business secretary firing up LaTeX and producing anything usable...
- Spryguy
Um... MS hasn't changed their file formats for their various apps for several versions now. Educate thyself before spouting off. The only exception to this is Access, to which they added Unicode support, which *necessitated* a format change (but the newer version is still compatible with the older format).
Additionally, the latest versions added HTML/XML as a 'native' file format for saving documents.
- Spryguy
"If that's the worst you can come up with, I think I rest my case."
Not hardly. There's the whole patients bill of rights thing in Texas... the one he fought hard against, didn't sign and let become law without his signature, that he's now taking credit for. Not only that, he's taking credit for the one aspect he fought the hardest: that patients could sue HMOs. Bush, in general, stands for corporate freedom, not individual freedom. Corporations get free reign, while individuals have no recourse in his perfect world. He scares me a lot in that area.
And as for his intellectual capacity, regardless of how you may revile salon, this article seems to state my views rather well. This is not a man I really want in the white house, in a hugely powerful position, where critical thinking is an asset.
Now you are just taking out your ass.
No, I'm not. Bush will do whatever it takes to get elected. From crowing about legislation he fought (see above), to distancing himself from the religious right when expedient, to cozying up to it when expedient. He plays a mushy, wishy-washy middle-ground, trying to appear to be as many things as possible. It's easy for him not to flip-flop too many times, becuase he doesn't seem to take too strong a stand very often (and he certainly never argues specifics, as his brain seemingly just can't hold on to too many facts or figures). And as for Gore, some of his 'flip-flops' as you call them, are the result of growing and learning. True, some others are due entirely to political expediency -- I'm not arguing Gore is any better at this than most politicians I know. And as for Reagan, he was pretty empty cranially, but he at least had strong convictions and a 'vision', which Bush utterly lacks. And I've never met Quayle in person, but from every interview and debate I saw him in, everything I heard him say publicly, he came across as a dunderhead to me. Not as bad as Bush by a long shot (I'm not saying he was totally stupid by any means), but I don't have any great respect for him as a thinker. Maybe meeting him one-on-one would change my mind, but I haven't had that opportunity.
GWB doesn't maintain close ties with them either. Maybe you should ask yourself why you are afraid of them. Do you really think that the Bush administration is actually going to push legislation that restricts religious freedom?
I know EXACTLY why I'm afraid of them. I am a non-Christian, non-heterosexual male. Yes, I think Bush would push legislation that would restrict religious freedom, as well as my freedom in general. He's already DONE so here in Texas, staunchly defending the Texas sodomy law, and killing any legislation that attempts to treat gay people as equal citizens. And while he may not have firm ties to the Religious Right in the way other Republican Candidates might (the very intelligent and VERY scary Alan Keyes to name just one), he does feel the need to 'appease' them (speeches at Bob Jones university, refusing to meet with the Log Cabin Republican group, etc).
Now, the only issues that I agree with him on are environmental. But even on environmental issues, he talks but doesn't deliver.
Hrm. Check out Bush's environmental record for just two seconds, and I have to wonder how you can support him at all. Bush doesn't give two figs about the environment. Gore at least talks the talk most of the time, and walks the walk at least some of the time. Bush doesn't even really pretend to talk the talk. If this is your primary issue, vote for anyone but Bush. Please. Don't let him do to Alaska and the rest of the country what has been done to Texas. Ugh. He asked corporations to write their own regulations, and then made following those regulations 'voluntary'. Texas is one of the most polluted states (in every way) in the country. Gore will not be, by ANY means (on ANY issue) perfect... but he'll be a damn sight better than Bush on major issues like the environment, in technology and the information economy, and understanding all the issues involved (and more importantly, the consequences of the decisions he makes). Gore will do better in standing against religious conservatives more strongly than Bush, preserving not only religious freedom (and freedom from religion for those who aren't Christian fundamentalists), as well as in preserving and maintaining equal civil rights for all individuals across the board.
Frankly, I wish we could ask for a shuffle and re-deal. I'd take McCain and Colin Powel over Bush too. I'd take Jesse Ventura over any of the current crop, to tell the truth, and that's just sad. But of the limited choices available, Bush scares me on more fronts than Gore does.
- Spryguy
"This is a classic sign of liberal desperation. "
:-)
That's a classic line of conservative desperation
Let's take Bush's AWOL experience. Bush cannot account for nearly a YEAR, when he was supposed to be in Alabama. There is no record.
Gore's internet claim was, as I originaly read it, quite accurate. He NEVER claimed to have invented the internet, period. This is not revisionist history.
I either remember the original statements clearly, or I did do the research. Bush lied his ass off in the debate about THREE guys going to death for the Byrd dragging death, when it was only two. And as for the 'Quaylesque' gaffs, this comforts you? The fact that the man cannot pronounce simple words, string together simple sentences, or speak coherently in his own mother tongue? That he seems to have memorized plattitudes and sound-bites, but shows no real depth of understanding to back them up?
Reagan WAS not all that bright, and relied on his advisors a lot, and barely seemed to know what country he was in, and thought trees caused pollution. Quayle *was* a pretty big idiot. Bush Sr. was slightly more intelligent, but was still so incoherent when it came to speaking it was almost scary (never mind throwing up all over the Japanese Prime Minister). And Dubbya Shrub is probably the dumbest one of all. It's not insulting his intelligence to state and obvious fact that ANYONE listening to the debates could fiture out. He was parotting without a depth of understanding, his answers in subsequent debates were very close to duplicates (word for word) with anwers in earlier debates. He couldn't defend himself on the facts, and always resorted to 'character' or changing the subject.
You think Gore will say anything to get elected? Have you listened to Bush at all? He's every bit as bad. In this area, neither one can claim superiority at all, period.
People I know who are for a lot of the positions Bush talks about are scared as shit that he'll actually become president... because he's such an obvious doofus. With scary religious-right influences (most of my friends value their religious freedoms, and not all of them are Christian, let alone the 'right kind' of Christian).
I'd love to see your proof of the pot/heroin/LSD allegations against Gore. I hadn't heard anything about heroin or LSD before, and am guessing you're making that up out of desperation and irrational Gore-phobia. Not sure what you're so scared of, seeing how far ahead the idiot Bush is. The American people will aparently get just what they deserve (and I'm from Texas, living in Austin, so I know what a fraud Bush is first-hand).
- Spryguy
Gore does NOT think he invented it. Why do you perpetuate this piece of misinformation, except out of utter ignorance? Gore was instrumental in funding for the internet in early days, and getting the government up and on the web in later days. Gore is technically savvy, and without his efforts, we wouldn't be where we are today. Period. There are plenty of articles debunking the taken-out-of-context, mis-quoted urban legend regarding Gore thinking he 'invented the internet'. He never said any such thing. He is not actually delusional in any way. What he originally said was accurate. You've just swallowed the line created by ignorant reporters and spin-masters from Gore's opponents.
- Spryguy
No, but you can pay it down from the outrageously high level it is at right now, so that you don't need to set aside so much of the budget (OUR TAXES) to pay the interest on that debt.
- Spryguy