I think you're dead on, and it further explains why europe is more "liberal" than the US; their average population density is often much higher than us in our wide open nation. They are more Urban than we are at this point, overall.
And, today's republicans are a completely different breed than the republicans of yesteryear. In case you haven't noticed, small government isn't really on their plate anymore, and they've been co-opted by the religious right's agenda, which includes intolerance to homosexuals and a need to legislate "morality" that includes said intolerance, judgement, restriction, what have you.
If the republicans could just get off their religious right addiction.... then they would start to shake the bigot label. This is not a PR coup. Welcome to your party. moderates to the right, bible beaters further to the right please, move along now.
That's right, it doesn't matter, up until we finally wise up and realize that until we change our policies in the middle east, it doesn't matter if we destroy Al Qaeda, catch bin laden, make Iraq democratic or anything else we wish to do there.
We need to stop creating violence, funding it, encouraging it, and playing both sides against the middle in the middle east, like we have been for decades. the WTC, despicable tragedy as it was, was a response to an action, an ongoing action, an action that continues to this day.
Sure would be simpler if we would reduce our dependance on foreign oil so we could actually leave the middle east alone instead of sponsoring coups, bloodthirsty madmen, arming everything there to the teeth and then wondering why they think we are the Great White Satan. We are, in real terms, from their perspective. If China were in the USA sponsoring insurrections, rubberstamping our behaviour and then turning around to set Canada against us, and invaded Mexico, you bet we'd hate em. It's not so different over there.
furthermore, what are you saying? That if it weren't a just war, that the soldiers who fought in it should be ashamed? I thought the reasonable stance, that we all learned from vietnam, is you don't shit on the soldiers, you shit on the administration that wasted their lives. A man doing his duty is worthy of respect. A man sending others to die for nothng is worthy of charges of treason, or murder.
no shit, but that wasn't what we were talking about. We were talking about Clinton's fiscal responsibility. I put forth that it wasn't his fiscal responsibility that set the tone for the 90's budgets and surpluses, it was gobs of available revenue for the government.
What you're saying has a few valid points, but isn't at all relevant to what we were discussing.
actually, the one thing you can say about the vast majority of homosexuals is that they did have heterosexual parents. maybe heterosexuals should stop breeding so we won't have any more gays!
awww, because he actually stepped up, did his duty, and went when he was called... served... came back and spoke out on what he saw. He has something to talk about. The fact that he actually did his duty is something he's got up on Mr. Bush.
Just because he spoke out on the war, he shouldn't be able to take credit for actually doing his duty like thousands of others (but not Bush) did?
1. It's called Due Process. If you can't abide by it, you are in danger of unjust and immoral practices. That's why it exists. That's why doing without it should be a very last resort indeed.
2. On the one hand you have a country with death squads and the world's best military equipment and training, and on the other you have poor people throwing stones and blowing themselves up to kill civilians. Morally equivalent, perhaps not exactly, but they are not so far apart. It sounds like Sharon is chilling out in his old age though... maybe good things are ahead, we'll see.
3. Protests are great, are they gonna stop Iran from developing Nukes?
4. "Aid and comfort". Fuck off. Vietnam was a total political bullshit war, just like Iraq, and I for one salute every single person who had the balls to stand up and call a spade a spade.
that's convnenient. Now please name the religion that first started marriage. I'll wait.
It was still considered ownership up until the early twentieth century in america; america was not "government by religion"; so try again.
Like I said it is impossible to call marriage religious or secular at this point. It's been blended and pulled around in both directions for a very long time.
I don't have a problem of getting the state of of marriage, and simply conferring "civil union" status on religious marriages in addition to their own secular process (for convenience).
However, I don't think that will ever happen, and you're just playing semantics at that point anyway, so I see no real value in it. Either the unions are equal or they are not, and if they are, there is no need to change the name. What religions do is up to religions, and if you're a gay catholic, you still can't make the catholic church perform a wedding for you, no matter what the state does, so it's a non-issue there.
Marriage as an institution has existed as a legally binding institution for thousands of years. For a very, very long time it was a transfer of ownership of a woman from father to the new husband.
Yet it's religious? Religions co-opted marriage. Marriage itself is neither inherently religious nor secular at this point. It has been one, the other or both for so long making such a statement is silly.
Gee I don't know. Why don't we go ask China how they'd feel about us taking a cut of their people's income directly. I bet they'd have no problem with it. And then we could have our workers send tax money to every country that we sell our products in as well.
and whether it benefits you or not is irrelevant to everything in the universe but you. If you are at all able to think about more than yourself, then that would have significance. If not, you're a total waste of time.
Let's see... Kissinger ok's Iran taking Iraqi holdings in 1975, then eight years later, after a revolution we sponsored in Iran, we're openly supporting Saddam with military, chemical, biological, and basic nuclear components.
http://i-cias.com/e.o/iran_5.htm
And on that timeline, I dont' see another conflict between Iran and Iraq, or their previous incarnations, for quite some time.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you're dead on, and it further explains why europe is more "liberal" than the US; their average population density is often much higher than us in our wide open nation. They are more Urban than we are at this point, overall.
And, today's republicans are a completely different breed than the republicans of yesteryear. In case you haven't noticed, small government isn't really on their plate anymore, and they've been co-opted by the religious right's agenda, which includes intolerance to homosexuals and a need to legislate "morality" that includes said intolerance, judgement, restriction, what have you.
If the republicans could just get off their religious right addiction.... then they would start to shake the bigot label. This is not a PR coup. Welcome to your party. moderates to the right, bible beaters further to the right please, move along now.
That's right, it doesn't matter, up until we finally wise up and realize that until we change our policies in the middle east, it doesn't matter if we destroy Al Qaeda, catch bin laden, make Iraq democratic or anything else we wish to do there.
We need to stop creating violence, funding it, encouraging it, and playing both sides against the middle in the middle east, like we have been for decades. the WTC, despicable tragedy as it was, was a response to an action, an ongoing action, an action that continues to this day.
Sure would be simpler if we would reduce our dependance on foreign oil so we could actually leave the middle east alone instead of sponsoring coups, bloodthirsty madmen, arming everything there to the teeth and then wondering why they think we are the Great White Satan. We are, in real terms, from their perspective. If China were in the USA sponsoring insurrections, rubberstamping our behaviour and then turning around to set Canada against us, and invaded Mexico, you bet we'd hate em. It's not so different over there.
furthermore, what are you saying? That if it weren't a just war, that the soldiers who fought in it should be ashamed? I thought the reasonable stance, that we all learned from vietnam, is you don't shit on the soldiers, you shit on the administration that wasted their lives. A man doing his duty is worthy of respect. A man sending others to die for nothng is worthy of charges of treason, or murder.
fair enough, good post.
no shit, but that wasn't what we were talking about. We were talking about Clinton's fiscal responsibility. I put forth that it wasn't his fiscal responsibility that set the tone for the 90's budgets and surpluses, it was gobs of available revenue for the government.
What you're saying has a few valid points, but isn't at all relevant to what we were discussing.
actually, the one thing you can say about the vast majority of homosexuals is that they did have heterosexual parents. maybe heterosexuals should stop breeding so we won't have any more gays!
Regardless of the nature of the boom, government had no problem with revenue during the 90's. That was not because of Clinton.
awww, because he actually stepped up, did his duty, and went when he was called... served... came back and spoke out on what he saw. He has something to talk about. The fact that he actually did his duty is something he's got up on Mr. Bush.
Just because he spoke out on the war, he shouldn't be able to take credit for actually doing his duty like thousands of others (but not Bush) did?
I have no idea what you are responding to. I stated that it's silly to call marriage religious. You seem to agree?
1. It's called Due Process. If you can't abide by it, you are in danger of unjust and immoral practices. That's why it exists. That's why doing without it should be a very last resort indeed.
2. On the one hand you have a country with death squads and the world's best military equipment and training, and on the other you have poor people throwing stones and blowing themselves up to kill civilians. Morally equivalent, perhaps not exactly, but they are not so far apart. It sounds like Sharon is chilling out in his old age though... maybe good things are ahead, we'll see.
3. Protests are great, are they gonna stop Iran from developing Nukes?
4. "Aid and comfort". Fuck off. Vietnam was a total political bullshit war, just like Iraq, and I for one salute every single person who had the balls to stand up and call a spade a spade.
.... and because he happened to be president during the longest largest boom in human history.
and what happens if you add in defense spending I wonder? Why pull that out?
that's convnenient. Now please name the religion that first started marriage. I'll wait.
It was still considered ownership up until the early twentieth century in america; america was not "government by religion"; so try again.
Like I said it is impossible to call marriage religious or secular at this point. It's been blended and pulled around in both directions for a very long time.
I see what you're saying. I agree and will clarify that I do think it should be funded research.
awesome. can we stop making me pay for wars I don't believe in too, with my taxpayer dollars?
How about the ban on new strains of stem cells being developed for research?
I don't have a problem of getting the state of of marriage, and simply conferring "civil union" status on religious marriages in addition to their own secular process (for convenience).
However, I don't think that will ever happen, and you're just playing semantics at that point anyway, so I see no real value in it. Either the unions are equal or they are not, and if they are, there is no need to change the name. What religions do is up to religions, and if you're a gay catholic, you still can't make the catholic church perform a wedding for you, no matter what the state does, so it's a non-issue there.
why does it have anything at all to do with church? A hell of a lot of people don't get married in religious ceremonies you know.
Marriage as an institution has existed as a legally binding institution for thousands of years. For a very, very long time it was a transfer of ownership of a woman from father to the new husband.
Yet it's religious? Religions co-opted marriage. Marriage itself is neither inherently religious nor secular at this point. It has been one, the other or both for so long making such a statement is silly.
Taking a stance closer towards tolerance should not hurt anyone.
That said, too bad BOTH candidates are bigots on the whole matter.
oooo, you got me, Narcissus. how fantastically boring.
Gee I don't know. Why don't we go ask China how they'd feel about us taking a cut of their people's income directly. I bet they'd have no problem with it. And then we could have our workers send tax money to every country that we sell our products in as well.
and whether it benefits you or not is irrelevant to everything in the universe but you. If you are at all able to think about more than yourself, then that would have significance. If not, you're a total waste of time.
That's an effect, not a loophole. Unless you're saying that we should be taxing foreign workers or something.
Let's see... Kissinger ok's Iran taking Iraqi holdings in 1975, then eight years later, after a revolution we sponsored in Iran, we're openly supporting Saddam with military, chemical, biological, and basic nuclear components.
http://i-cias.com/e.o/iran_5.htm
And on that timeline, I dont' see another conflict between Iran and Iraq, or their previous incarnations, for quite some time.
Read up, Mr. Coward.