"If it is already there, why count not using it as a savings?"
Maintenance/Expansion.
"Also, what that means is that you are more likely to lose all of your communications if one delicate wire is cut, rather than "just" losing phone or internet."
We are getting ready to move to VoIP. What we're doing is keeping our regular phone lines, but just using VoIP for our office phones. This allows us to:
* Get rid of our phones, increasing desk space (we just connect headsets to our computer)
* Transfer calls to people's houses if they are logged in to our VPN
* Be able to record calls by just dialing out on a special extension
* Be able to save money w/ long distance by going over VoIP, and having it automatically go over PSTN if the external network connection is down.
In addition, asterisk is extremely scriptable. We can do all this for under a grand, as apposed to PBX boxes which cost about 10 grand.
* The fate of TWA Flight 800 (John Kerry and George Stephanopolous both refer to it as a terrorist attack)
* What was Iraq's role in the OKC bombing (training Nichols and providing assistance for carrying out the attack)
* The fate of AA 587 (The Canadian Post names the person who blew it up)
* Is West Nile Virus a virus developed by Saddam Hussein?
* What is the relationship between Libya and Iraq (many think Iraq's scientists were the ones working on Libya's nukes, using equipment from N. Korea)
Those are the ones I can think of off the top of my head.
Speaking of schools and IEPs and dealing with special needs, one of the best schools for special needs kids is The Little Light House. It is a private tuition-free school (not funded by the state or United Way, either), and initially started to serve blind children, although they serve pretty much every disability now. It's probably not that useful for your situation -- it's for kids under 7 -- but it is waaay better than state special needs education.
This Saturday is a special event called mini-laps -- all of the kids take a lap around the school mini-track in whatever way they can the best. My kid was pulled in a wagon last year, but he is going to walk with a walker this year!
Anyway, it's the greatest school with the greatest staff ever. If anyone here ever is pregnant with a possible special needs kid, I suggest you move to Tulsa, OK and get on their waiting list (it's 2 years long at the moment, but they do have a class for certain disabilities of newborns).
You would not believe the commitment from the staff, either. It's truly amazing.
Actually, that's the funny thing. Engineers, while not being datable AT ALL, seem to be the most _marryable_ types around. It's like women go out with cool guys into it gets boring, and then find engineers to settle down with. Either that, or engineers attract people who are more interested in marriage than the cool guys.
I think the point is that the government should be able to run without oversight - i.e. it should always have oversight, but when it NEEDS oversight it's because it NEEDS to be changed.
What I would like to hear from John Kerry is the information he has concerning TWA Flight 800. He has referred to TWA Flight 800 as a terrorist act on two occasions - once on the Larry King Live show and once on Chris Matthew's. However, these points are not going to likely be a part of the debates, sadly.
"No, they're based on the concepts that theocracies are inherently abusive systems of government, and that freedom is the best basis for a society."
That's correct. That's why our government is not a theocracy. A theocracy weds the government with a specific institution of religion. Our country was careful to be certain that, while God is a central focus of our law, that it is not wedded to a human theological institution.
"James Madison drafted the First Amendment, and he appears to have been a particularly religious man."
Madison wrote it, but it was more influenced by Issac Backus and John Leland, who had close ties to Madison.
"Perhaps you can reference these for me; I've heard this claim before but never seen it actually backed up. Do you mean, it was based on arguments made by Christians, or do you mean it's based on the Bible?"
Leland and Backus's arguments were Biblically based.
"Like the laws saying that slavery was outlawed? The Bible approved of slavery. Jesus had no complaint about it. So exactly which religious principle is the 13th Amendment based on?"
The Bible kind of approved of slavery. The Bible allowed slavery. It also allowed divorce, which was on the list of things that God said He hated. The Bible approves of slavery if you treat slaves as your brother, and treat them as Christ treats you, being Christ's slave. This doesn't make the institution of slavery very worthwhile for Christians.
"How about intellectual property law? That has no basis in religion; it was basically invented with the Statute of Anne so that the Crown of England could keep control over the new technology of printing."
The authority to make law comes from religious arguments.
"What's wrong with secular humanism?"
It's a religion, and has specific religious beliefs (i.e. that God, if He exists, cannot violate scientific law). I personally disagree, seeing as how my son recovered from hypertrophic cardiomyopathy by prayer -- a supposedly incurable condition.
"Since there have been more than four thousand distinct deities proposed since the dawn of civilization, it would be foolishness to ignore any of them -- yet we ignore them all except Jehovah in this country."
It is foolish to ignore any true religion. Which ones you keep and which ones you ignore are theological arguments. Ignoring all of them is a theological argument, as well as ignoring all but Jehovah, as well as ignoring none of them.
"If the government says nothing about God, and lets individuals deal with him the way they want, you think that violates the separation of church and state? Are you mad?"
There is a difference from having laws based on God and laws forcing a certain belief. We have laws against murder, which are based on theological suppositions. We do not force the belief that murder is wrong, just the act. This allows for disagreement, and prevents voices from being silenced who need to be heard. If the government prohibitted religious speech/ideas, then the government would be taking authority for which ideas are correct or not, thus taking the place of God. Instead, the government makes laws of practice, but allows for dissent and conflicting ideas in the case that the reasoning for the original laws was faulty -- otherwise you have no ability to correct faulty law.
"Why? You keep implying that there's something wrong with two homosexuals raising a child, but you have yet to state exactly what it is that's wrong with it, and why you think there's something wrong with it. All research points to the fact that there is no difference in the psychological health of children raised by hetero or homosexual couples, so what are you basing this on?"
Care to provide links? I'll look up some if I get the chance.
"What if you discovered that those two sweet old ladies were actually lesbians? Would it then be okay to revoke their rights, because of consenting sexual activity?"
"Religion has no place in this debate; you do not get to decide the civil liberties of our citizens based on your religion. See the First Amendment."
That's the funniest quote I've ever heard. The civil liberties of our citizens are BASED on religion. The arguments employed for the separation from England and for the Bill of Rights are entirely theological. In fact, the non-establishment of religion clause was designed specifically by a Baptist in order to make discipling others easier. The freedom of religion is based entirely on Christian arguments and foundations.
The First Amendment certainly does not say that law should not be based on religious principle. On that account, none of our laws would have ever been made. What it says is that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" By "establishment of religion" it means "denomination". Basically, it says that congress will not side with any particular denomination as an organizational entity, and will not prevent anyone from practicing their beliefs, except as prohibited by other laws. It says nothing of the theological foundation of law.
In fact, it is impossible to separate theology from any endeavor without actively promoting atheism or secular humanism (which, although it is arguable whether they are religions, do have specific religious beliefs). If God is real, then to ignore Him in making law would be foolishness. The purpose of the first amendment is not to get God out of law, but to keep human institutions -- i.e. establishments of religion -- from taking the role of God. Now, if God is not real, then arguments from religion are void -- however, that presupposition is in fact a religious one. Therefore, whether you keep God in law or kick Him out, you are making a theological determination, and thus violating your supposed "separation of church and state" rule.
"If a homosexual couple wanted to have all the same rights and privileges as a hetero couple, but it was instead called (for example) a "civil union" instead of "marriage," would you be okay with that? Or do you simply object to the idea of homosexual couples having any rights, like power of attorney, inheritance rights, joint property rights, hospital visitation rights, etc.?"
It is the rights concerning children which bother me. The other rights are already obtainable, although with some effort. I have no problem with a legal vehicle (such as civil unions) being established for others to do such things, especially as it has relevance outside of the gay community (a number of old ladies live together and need such a device).
You are correct in part -- I think it is absurd to arbitrarily change the definition of a word that has had essentially the same meaning across nearly all cultures for thousands of years. Especially the idea that we can co-opt a legal term to mean something new without new legislation is especially appalling from a legal standpoint. But that is not my only concern, as I have pointed out.
Also, your uses of science for coming up with an alternative mechanism actually skirts the issue -- we were made a given way, the fact that science can skirt around some aspects of this does not nullify the other aspects of this (like growing up with a mother and father). I am very concerned at what the next generation will have to overcome if homosexual marriage becomes a societal norm.
"I suggest that if divorce weakens families, we should make divorce illegal."
I agree that we should make it VERY difficult. Like you have to show bruises or infidelity or something. And then the offending spouse gets NOTHING.
"You haven't supported your idea that schools will start promoting homos"
a) they already have in many schools
b) once the homosexual relationship is elevated to the status of able to be married, you don't think the homosexual lobby will be writing and getting books about homosexual families in the schools? You must have missed what already happened on TV. I live in the city that has the largest per-capita homosexual population in the country (Tulsa, OK), and there's nowhere near as many homosexual people as portrayed on TV.
"Do you think homos are fags by choice?"
Interesting errr... choice of words.
I think that engaging in the act is a matter of choice. People are predisposed to do all sorts of things that are bad for them and others. Being predisposed does not make it good.
"Hell, I would be happy if there was less emphasis on families procreating children. There are too many divorced single mothers already."
The way I see it is that previously divorce was popularized and the rest of us stood silent because, well, it wasn't "our" marriage that was suffering. But we have a whole generation of suffering people who have arisen from a culture of divorce. I think if we downgrade marriage even further with homosexual "marriage" we will wind up with a new generation of people who are even more hurting than this one.
You miss how such things weaken families. It's the same way that divorce has weakened families. It's no longer viewed as something special in society that a man and a woman comes together for life to have children and raise a family. In case you didn't notice, homosexual couples are completely unable to have children of their own, even theoretically. It is my contention that we are made to have a father and mother raise us. While some people do not have a father and mother due to tragedy, it is appalling to me that people would choose to not have a father and mother for their child.
However, if homosexuality is given the "marital" status, that means that all government institutions will have to treat homosexual marriage as equivalent with heterosexual marriage, and you will have adoptions go to homosexual parents instead of giving the child both a mother and a father (in fact, this is already happening). Children spend most of their day at school, and the values taught at school are the ones they keep, just because of the schoool/home time differential. The schools will invariably start promoting the homosexual lifestyle, which, by its very nature, has less of an emphasis on families procreating children. The cause of procreation is one of the chief reasons for the institution of marriage, or at least for the valuing of the institution of marriage.
"So by your reasoning, encouraging more homosexual couples to marry rather than remain single and uncommitted would make "stronger" families and thus require less governance."
No, I think homosexual marriage would weaken families.
"Q: Do you believe two single people require less governance than two married people?"
No, I think people who are part of strong families require less governance than people who are not. And by strong families I'm not just talking about the immediate family.
"That's because they carefully sift for only the facts that support their viewpoint."
Obviously you haven't watched CBS or read the New York Times lately...
Honestly there is no more sifting than any other organization -- in fact I think there's less, and you'll find quite a lot of facts that other news organizations fail to report. I think they give a pretty good reflection of what's going on.
"However, from a legal stance when looking at "unions" you can't push that moral obligation onto the person."
Why not? The union is freely entered into. Noone is preventing two people from making other random commitments to each other. It is just not legally recognized as marriage.
Am I relying on them? No. I have many informatino sources.
However, you obviously never read NewsMax. They have some of the best stuff. They have the best critique of Bush's National Guard records that I've seen. Does it differ from what the mainstream media is putting out? Yes. Why? Because the mainstream media is pushing out a load of crap.
I've heard a lot of people trash NewsMax, but it's usually just because it has reports that doesn't support their presuppositions, not because they have factual arguments as to why NewsMax is wrong.
"Or is it cool to you that if one partner dies unexpectedly, the authorities won't even bother contacting their partner because that person isn't legally a spouse? And the financial loss/burden that can impose?"
You can set this up already. Many have already done so. I certainly would support measures to make this easier legally, because this is quite useful for any non-married people. Many old ladies live together in a non-sexual fashion, and have to jump through hoops to get this kind of stuff done, and I fully support "civil unions" or other such legal devices to make this easier. But to call it marriage is silly, and to call a breakup of such a union a divorce is likewise silly.
Of course, it leaves out a number of things, like the connection between Iraq and the 1995 OKC bombing. For that, you'll have to read this or this.
Iraq has had a lot more involvement in terror, specifically terror against the US than many people know and than the news agencies let on. We've also found a number of WMD that were never reported by the mass media. You should really read David Kay's report to congress.
Actually, what would be more interesting is to see when/if we are ever going to have a time that is not a national emergency. We have a lot of laws that have special exceptions for times of emergencies. The interesting detail that most people leave out is that the United States has been in a constant state of emergency since 1933. For different reasons, of course, it just so happens that EVERY YEAR there is something that warrants a national emergency. We don't think about it, so we allow all sorts of legislation to pass with exceptions for national emergencies, not even thinking about the fact that we are always in one.
Are you sure? John Kerry has actually come out against gay marriage. The candidates only disagree as to whether or not the issue is deserving of an amendment, not as to whether or not the government should decide.
Technically you are correct if you are talking about the federal government. State government does have power over social issues. In fact, it was not considered a violation of the bill of rights for states to even have a state religion, as many of them had at the time.
"if someone is getting an abortion"
You don't think the government should get involved when mothers and doctors kill children? Should Terri Schaivo's husband also be allowed to kill her in order to be with his new honey? Abortion is NOT a "social issue". Now, again, this is really a state issue. Unfortunately, the courts thought it was a federal issue and made the decision for everybody. The marriage thing, too -- it's the courts who are, in general making the executive branch have to deal with social and other issues outside of their jurisdiction, because the court keeps bringing it into their jurisdiction.
I agree. However, I disagree with the notion that divorces should be handled quickly and efficiently. Divorces should be very rare and very hard to get. Marriage is a lifetime agreement. If you don't want to get into a lifetime agreement, you shouldn't.
Slashdot Mirror
"If it is already there, why count not using it as a savings?"
Maintenance/Expansion.
"Also, what that means is that you are more likely to lose all of your communications if one delicate wire is cut, rather than "just" losing phone or internet."
We are getting ready to move to VoIP. What we're doing is keeping our regular phone lines, but just using VoIP for our office phones. This allows us to:
* Get rid of our phones, increasing desk space (we just connect headsets to our computer)
* Transfer calls to people's houses if they are logged in to our VPN
* Be able to record calls by just dialing out on a special extension
* Be able to save money w/ long distance by going over VoIP, and having it automatically go over PSTN if the external network connection is down.
In addition, asterisk is extremely scriptable. We can do all this for under a grand, as apposed to PBX boxes which cost about 10 grand.
Others:
* The fate of TWA Flight 800 (John Kerry and George Stephanopolous both refer to it as a terrorist attack)
* What was Iraq's role in the OKC bombing (training Nichols and providing assistance for carrying out the attack)
* The fate of AA 587 (The Canadian Post names the person who blew it up)
* Is West Nile Virus a virus developed by Saddam Hussein?
* What is the relationship between Libya and Iraq (many think Iraq's scientists were the ones working on Libya's nukes, using equipment from N. Korea)
Those are the ones I can think of off the top of my head.
Speaking of schools and IEPs and dealing with special needs, one of the best schools for special needs kids is The Little Light House. It is a private tuition-free school (not funded by the state or United Way, either), and initially started to serve blind children, although they serve pretty much every disability now. It's probably not that useful for your situation -- it's for kids under 7 -- but it is waaay better than state special needs education.
This Saturday is a special event called mini-laps -- all of the kids take a lap around the school mini-track in whatever way they can the best. My kid was pulled in a wagon last year, but he is going to walk with a walker this year!
Anyway, it's the greatest school with the greatest staff ever. If anyone here ever is pregnant with a possible special needs kid, I suggest you move to Tulsa, OK and get on their waiting list (it's 2 years long at the moment, but they do have a class for certain disabilities of newborns).
You would not believe the commitment from the staff, either. It's truly amazing.
Actually, that's the funny thing. Engineers, while not being datable AT ALL, seem to be the most _marryable_ types around. It's like women go out with cool guys into it gets boring, and then find engineers to settle down with. Either that, or engineers attract people who are more interested in marriage than the cool guys.
I think the point is that the government should be able to run without oversight - i.e. it should always have oversight, but when it NEEDS oversight it's because it NEEDS to be changed.
What I would like to hear from John Kerry is the information he has concerning TWA Flight 800. He has referred to TWA Flight 800 as a terrorist act on two occasions - once on the Larry King Live show and once on Chris Matthew's. However, these points are not going to likely be a part of the debates, sadly.
I disagree. Nautilus is actually just a conglomeration of applications that work together. Same with evolution.
http://rute.sf.net/
GNOME does the same thing w/ Bonobo.
"No, they're based on the concepts that theocracies are inherently abusive systems of government, and that freedom is the best basis for a society."
That's correct. That's why our government is not a theocracy. A theocracy weds the government with a specific institution of religion. Our country was careful to be certain that, while God is a central focus of our law, that it is not wedded to a human theological institution.
"James Madison drafted the First Amendment, and he appears to have been a particularly religious man."
Madison wrote it, but it was more influenced by Issac Backus and John Leland, who had close ties to Madison.
"Perhaps you can reference these for me; I've heard this claim before but never seen it actually backed up. Do you mean, it was based on arguments made by Christians, or do you mean it's based on the Bible?"
Leland and Backus's arguments were Biblically based.
"Like the laws saying that slavery was outlawed? The Bible approved of slavery. Jesus had no complaint about it. So exactly which religious principle is the 13th Amendment based on?"
The Bible kind of approved of slavery. The Bible allowed slavery. It also allowed divorce, which was on the list of things that God said He hated. The Bible approves of slavery if you treat slaves as your brother, and treat them as Christ treats you, being Christ's slave. This doesn't make the institution of slavery very worthwhile for Christians.
"How about intellectual property law? That has no basis in religion; it was basically invented with the Statute of Anne so that the Crown of England could keep control over the new technology of printing."
The authority to make law comes from religious arguments.
"What's wrong with secular humanism?"
It's a religion, and has specific religious beliefs (i.e. that God, if He exists, cannot violate scientific law). I personally disagree, seeing as how my son recovered from hypertrophic cardiomyopathy by prayer -- a supposedly incurable condition.
"Since there have been more than four thousand distinct deities proposed since the dawn of civilization, it would be foolishness to ignore any of them -- yet we ignore them all except Jehovah in this country."
It is foolish to ignore any true religion. Which ones you keep and which ones you ignore are theological arguments. Ignoring all of them is a theological argument, as well as ignoring all but Jehovah, as well as ignoring none of them.
"If the government says nothing about God, and lets individuals deal with him the way they want, you think that violates the separation of church and state? Are you mad?"
There is a difference from having laws based on God and laws forcing a certain belief. We have laws against murder, which are based on theological suppositions. We do not force the belief that murder is wrong, just the act. This allows for disagreement, and prevents voices from being silenced who need to be heard. If the government prohibitted religious speech/ideas, then the government would be taking authority for which ideas are correct or not, thus taking the place of God. Instead, the government makes laws of practice, but allows for dissent and conflicting ideas in the case that the reasoning for the original laws was faulty -- otherwise you have no ability to correct faulty law.
"Why? You keep implying that there's something wrong with two homosexuals raising a child, but you have yet to state exactly what it is that's wrong with it, and why you think there's something wrong with it. All research points to the fact that there is no difference in the psychological health of children raised by hetero or homosexual couples, so what are you basing this on?"
Care to provide links? I'll look up some if I get the chance.
"What if you discovered that those two sweet old ladies were actually lesbians? Would it then be okay to revoke their rights, because of consenting sexual activity?"
I said I agreed with the
"Religion has no place in this debate; you do not get to decide the civil liberties of our citizens based on your religion. See the First Amendment."
That's the funniest quote I've ever heard. The civil liberties of our citizens are BASED on religion. The arguments employed for the separation from England and for the Bill of Rights are entirely theological. In fact, the non-establishment of religion clause was designed specifically by a Baptist in order to make discipling others easier. The freedom of religion is based entirely on Christian arguments and foundations.
The First Amendment certainly does not say that law should not be based on religious principle. On that account, none of our laws would have ever been made. What it says is that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" By "establishment of religion" it means "denomination". Basically, it says that congress will not side with any particular denomination as an organizational entity, and will not prevent anyone from practicing their beliefs, except as prohibited by other laws. It says nothing of the theological foundation of law.
In fact, it is impossible to separate theology from any endeavor without actively promoting atheism or secular humanism (which, although it is arguable whether they are religions, do have specific religious beliefs). If God is real, then to ignore Him in making law would be foolishness. The purpose of the first amendment is not to get God out of law, but to keep human institutions -- i.e. establishments of religion -- from taking the role of God. Now, if God is not real, then arguments from religion are void -- however, that presupposition is in fact a religious one. Therefore, whether you keep God in law or kick Him out, you are making a theological determination, and thus violating your supposed "separation of church and state" rule.
"If a homosexual couple wanted to have all the same rights and privileges as a hetero couple, but it was instead called (for example) a "civil union" instead of "marriage," would you be okay with that? Or do you simply object to the idea of homosexual couples having any rights, like power of attorney, inheritance rights, joint property rights, hospital visitation rights, etc.?"
It is the rights concerning children which bother me. The other rights are already obtainable, although with some effort. I have no problem with a legal vehicle (such as civil unions) being established for others to do such things, especially as it has relevance outside of the gay community (a number of old ladies live together and need such a device).
You are correct in part -- I think it is absurd to arbitrarily change the definition of a word that has had essentially the same meaning across nearly all cultures for thousands of years. Especially the idea that we can co-opt a legal term to mean something new without new legislation is especially appalling from a legal standpoint. But that is not my only concern, as I have pointed out.
Also, your uses of science for coming up with an alternative mechanism actually skirts the issue -- we were made a given way, the fact that science can skirt around some aspects of this does not nullify the other aspects of this (like growing up with a mother and father). I am very concerned at what the next generation will have to overcome if homosexual marriage becomes a societal norm.
"I suggest that if divorce weakens families, we should make divorce illegal."
I agree that we should make it VERY difficult. Like you have to show bruises or infidelity or something. And then the offending spouse gets NOTHING.
"You haven't supported your idea that schools will start promoting homos"
a) they already have in many schools
b) once the homosexual relationship is elevated to the status of able to be married, you don't think the homosexual lobby will be writing and getting books about homosexual families in the schools? You must have missed what already happened on TV. I live in the city that has the largest per-capita homosexual population in the country (Tulsa, OK), and there's nowhere near as many homosexual people as portrayed on TV.
"Do you think homos are fags by choice?"
Interesting errr... choice of words.
I think that engaging in the act is a matter of choice. People are predisposed to do all sorts of things that are bad for them and others. Being predisposed does not make it good.
"Hell, I would be happy if there was less emphasis on families procreating children. There are too many divorced single mothers already."
The way I see it is that previously divorce was popularized and the rest of us stood silent because, well, it wasn't "our" marriage that was suffering. But we have a whole generation of suffering people who have arisen from a culture of divorce. I think if we downgrade marriage even further with homosexual "marriage" we will wind up with a new generation of people who are even more hurting than this one.
You miss how such things weaken families. It's the same way that divorce has weakened families. It's no longer viewed as something special in society that a man and a woman comes together for life to have children and raise a family. In case you didn't notice, homosexual couples are completely unable to have children of their own, even theoretically. It is my contention that we are made to have a father and mother raise us. While some people do not have a father and mother due to tragedy, it is appalling to me that people would choose to not have a father and mother for their child.
However, if homosexuality is given the "marital" status, that means that all government institutions will have to treat homosexual marriage as equivalent with heterosexual marriage, and you will have adoptions go to homosexual parents instead of giving the child both a mother and a father (in fact, this is already happening). Children spend most of their day at school, and the values taught at school are the ones they keep, just because of the schoool/home time differential. The schools will invariably start promoting the homosexual lifestyle, which, by its very nature, has less of an emphasis on families procreating children. The cause of procreation is one of the chief reasons for the institution of marriage, or at least for the valuing of the institution of marriage.
I hope that answers your questions.
"Gay couples are already allowed to adopt children."
Actually, that's a state issue. Not all states are agreed, I don't think.
"So by your reasoning, encouraging more homosexual couples to marry rather than remain single and uncommitted would make "stronger" families and thus require less governance."
No, I think homosexual marriage would weaken families.
"Q: Do you believe two single people require less governance than two married people?"
No, I think people who are part of strong families require less governance than people who are not. And by strong families I'm not just talking about the immediate family.
"That's because they carefully sift for only the facts that support their viewpoint."
Obviously you haven't watched CBS or read the New York Times lately...
Honestly there is no more sifting than any other organization -- in fact I think there's less, and you'll find quite a lot of facts that other news organizations fail to report. I think they give a pretty good reflection of what's going on.
"However, from a legal stance when looking at "unions" you can't push that moral obligation onto the person."
Why not? The union is freely entered into. Noone is preventing two people from making other random commitments to each other. It is just not legally recognized as marriage.
Am I relying on them? No. I have many informatino sources.
However, you obviously never read NewsMax. They have some of the best stuff. They have the best critique of Bush's National Guard records that I've seen. Does it differ from what the mainstream media is putting out? Yes. Why? Because the mainstream media is pushing out a load of crap.
I've heard a lot of people trash NewsMax, but it's usually just because it has reports that doesn't support their presuppositions, not because they have factual arguments as to why NewsMax is wrong.
"Or is it cool to you that if one partner dies unexpectedly, the authorities won't even bother contacting their partner because that person isn't legally a spouse? And the financial loss/burden that can impose?"
You can set this up already. Many have already done so. I certainly would support measures to make this easier legally, because this is quite useful for any non-married people. Many old ladies live together in a non-sexual fashion, and have to jump through hoops to get this kind of stuff done, and I fully support "civil unions" or other such legal devices to make this easier. But to call it marriage is silly, and to call a breakup of such a union a divorce is likewise silly.
Of course, it leaves out a number of things, like the connection between Iraq and the 1995 OKC bombing. For that, you'll have to read this or this.
Iraq has had a lot more involvement in terror, specifically terror against the US than many people know and than the news agencies let on. We've also found a number of WMD that were never reported by the mass media. You should really read David Kay's report to congress.
A summary of David Kay's findings
more info about Iraq WMDs.
Actually, what would be more interesting is to see when/if we are ever going to have a time that is not a national emergency. We have a lot of laws that have special exceptions for times of emergencies. The interesting detail that most people leave out is that the United States has been in a constant state of emergency since 1933. For different reasons, of course, it just so happens that EVERY YEAR there is something that warrants a national emergency. We don't think about it, so we allow all sorts of legislation to pass with exceptions for national emergencies, not even thinking about the fact that we are always in one.
Are you sure? John Kerry has actually come out against gay marriage. The candidates only disagree as to whether or not the issue is deserving of an amendment, not as to whether or not the government should decide.
Technically you are correct if you are talking about the federal government. State government does have power over social issues. In fact, it was not considered a violation of the bill of rights for states to even have a state religion, as many of them had at the time.
"if someone is getting an abortion"
You don't think the government should get involved when mothers and doctors kill children? Should Terri Schaivo's husband also be allowed to kill her in order to be with his new honey? Abortion is NOT a "social issue". Now, again, this is really a state issue. Unfortunately, the courts thought it was a federal issue and made the decision for everybody. The marriage thing, too -- it's the courts who are, in general making the executive branch have to deal with social and other issues outside of their jurisdiction, because the court keeps bringing it into their jurisdiction.
I agree. However, I disagree with the notion that divorces should be handled quickly and efficiently. Divorces should be very rare and very hard to get. Marriage is a lifetime agreement. If you don't want to get into a lifetime agreement, you shouldn't.
The problem is that marriages often involve these little beasts called "children". This complicates the legal matters considerably.