Maybe the guy who got his computer seized by the FBI could use a spud gun to demand it be given back. By definition of the FBI itself, he couldn't be accused of assault with a firearm, right?
Religion in general, and Christianity in particular has been responsible for more and bloodier wars than anything else in Human history.
This is so incorrect I can't believe people are still using this to denounce Christianity. Hitler, Stalin, and Mao all killed more people in just this century than were killed in all the Crusades and Inquisitions combined. (Look up Kennedy's references in What If Jesus Had Never Been Born? if you want.) Even today hundreds if not thousands of Christians around the world are being killed for professing their faith, not much different than in Nero's empire. Injustice is endemic in humanity as a race, not just in "religious" people. God calls it "sin".
Need I remind you that the Branch Davidians were a
Christian cult?
Calling myself a tomato wouldn't make me one. The Branch Davidians were very clearly not Christians. All Christian denominations agree on certain core beliefs, and there is freedom to differ on particulars.
Socialism will never work in the real world. People aren't inherently charitable. If there's no incentive to work hard (personal gain) why should you? Just ride on the gov't. Which means to get any work done at all, the gov't has to step in and force the population to work.
Of course, the real problem is the voting system, as Katz points out. Until we get this sorted out, nobody has a chance of making a meaningful change to the American political landscape. All those third parties with such interesting thoughts? Forget about it until it's actually possible to get them elected, and that means removing the fear aspect* from voting.
I don't know if it will make a whit of difference, but I wrote a letter to the editor (Des Moines Register) yesterday concerning this very issue. We need to change the system, and get Instant Runoff Voting in place by 2004. Only then will the machinery be in place to effect real change. Maybe the letter will actually get printed. We'll see. In any case, I urge you to do the same. Get involved, even if it's only in a small way. Go to the polls November 7.
*Fear aspect: Being afraid that supporting a third party candidate as a matter of conscience will help elect the "mainstream" with ideals most unlike your own, a direct consequence of our stupid plurality-wins voting system.
I swear, the first time I saw this I thought it said "pant scam". I thought to myself, "It's just what it looks like? Why would anyone want to scam somebody's pants???" I kid you not. I guess I'm just not into the whole webcam thing.
Fer cryin' out loud. Can you split hairs any finer? "It's not written in the law of the country, only in the document that established the country in the first place, so I don't think it applies." Puh-leeze.
What is it about the Reform and Green parties that earns them better-than-typical-3rd-party status at sites like issues2000.org and webwhiteblue.org? More and more I am seeing these candidates presented as "real" candidates in web forums while other 3rd parties are left in the "other" column. (Of course, they're all ignored by mainstream media.) What's the deal? Why not equal treatment for all?
I'm not trying to troll, here. If someone could explain why Buchanan and Nader have such (media) appeal, I'd appreciate it. I'd really like to know. Maybe I've overlooked something.
No. The.net TLD was for network providers. AOL should be a.net since they are a commercial entity whose primary function is to provide 'net access. OTOH technology.web might be a Slash site for discussing HTTP, XML, etc. It's on the web and it's about the web.
Or maybe.web is just for sites on the web that don't fit any other TLD category.
Um, which religion? Christianity? Judaism? Islam? Oh wait, all those religions say that marriage is between a man and a woman.
You're right, though, the question is about sovereignty. The CP believes that the Founders wrote the Constitution with this fact in mind: only God is truly sovereign. All authority vested in us as stewards derives from Him. Man is subject to God, and the further the political power is removed from the individual, the worse it is.
So the CP isn't for "absolute state sovereignty" but rather for keeping gov't accountable to the people, who are in turn accountable to God. Smaller gov't is better gov't. The gov't has legislated morality before, such as when polygamy was outlawed. Family is the basic unit of gov't, and a good gov't has a vested interest in seeing strong families.
You know, that's a very good point. Since most people think the choice is between Bush and Gore, they will do exactly like you said, not understanding how the voting system works. (They don't even understand the current one.) Someone who wants Bush but hates Gore, and knows nobody else, may end up electing McReynolds. Wouldn't he be in for a rude awakening?
I think Instant Runoff would be the way to go. Three choices should be sufficient.
How the electoral votes are distributed (winner-takes-all or percentage-split) is determined by your own state. This particular problem is not the fault of the Electoral College itself. If you want the minor candidates fairly represented in your state, take it up with your state legislators!
But you know what else? Every race is going to be a close race. Every election is going to have alot at stake. So the question is: when are you going to get around to supporting the principles you believe in? That's the question I asked myself, and decided that, in good conscience, I couldn't not vote for Phillips (and whatever other CP candidates that happen to be running in my district, which is unfortunately none).
Then you're not aware of Howard Phillips, running for the Constitution Party. He recognizes that the federal gov't does have a role, but the constitutionally-limited scope is much smaller than the present one.
No, Phillips would say that the federal gov't has no business telling schools what to teach. That power is not delegated to the federal gov't by the Constitution. This particular decision should be left to the states and/or individual school boards.
My personal thought on the matter is that both should be taught as theories. Do we know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, how the universe began and how life started on the earth? No...we don't have any witnesses or any way to observe or recreate it. Good science is open to all possibilities.
Ah, another victim of revisionist history. There is a substantial amount of evidence indicating that most of the Founders were indeed Christians.
I am not homophobic. Homonauseated, perhaps.
Now a bit from the CP platform...
Article I of the Bill of Rights reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
Our Constitution grants no authority to the federal government either to grant or deny the religious expressions of the people in any place. Both the First and Tenth Amendments forbid such tyranny.
We call upon all branches of government to cease their attacks on the religious liberties of the people.
We assert that any form of taxation on churches and other religious organizations is a direct and dangerous step toward state control of the church. Such intrusion is prohibited by the Constitution and must be halted.
We assert that private organizations such as the Boy Scouts of America, can determine their own membership, volunteers, and employment based on their oaths and creeds.
Good for you! Though Nader is about as far as possible from my ideal candidate, I applaud you for voting your conscience. People like you (and me) make the system really work the way it's supposed to. That's what a representative-democratic republic is about.
Federal funding?No, thanks! I'm going to vote for a candidate that refuses subsidies from people who don't agree with him. It's called "liberty of conscience". You shouldn't be compelled to support something you don't believe in.
How dare Nader presume he can take a portion of my tax money, just because enough other people like him! That would be like Hitler taking my money to build his war machine just because enough people (the Germans) liked him.
Frankly, I'm really tired of religions trying to tell people what to do with themselves. I really wish people would keep their religions to themselves and just love others.
Funny, because that's exactly what Christ says. However, that must be applied consistently. And if you apply it consistently, you find that He's told you "have" to do certain things. But, only if you really want to love people. You're free not to love if you so choose.
I love everybody, including the unborn. I can't let my love for woman X (expressed in being supportive of her choices) override my love for baby Y (expressed in my desire that he lives). Life is more fundamental than liberty.
In my worldview, life is precious. If you view life as precious, and advocate loving others (as you claim), the only logical and self-consistent result is that you be pro-life. I consider myself "pro-choice" too (inasmuch as liberty is good) but no one's "choice" to murder another is justifiable.
Um, hello? The US was founded by Christians trying to escape religious persecution. These same Christians wrote an anti-establishment (of state religion) clause into the Bill of Rights.
Phillips believes in that. (It's the Constitution party for a reason.) Removing barriers to posting the Ten Commandments is nowhere near to establishing Christianity as a state religion. It's simply removing gov't from controlling education, something it has no constitutional grounds to do in the first place. The sooner you recognize that, the better off we'll be.
Your rights are safer with a God-fearing man as president than without.
That's a great idea, certainly better than my poll suggestion. The question is, who is the Hero Network that does this? BTW, were you aware than Freedom Channel already does something like this online? Not as good as TV of course, but better than nothing.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe the guy who got his computer seized by the FBI could use a spud gun to demand it be given back. By definition of the FBI itself, he couldn't be accused of assault with a firearm, right?
This is so incorrect I can't believe people are still using this to denounce Christianity. Hitler, Stalin, and Mao all killed more people in just this century than were killed in all the Crusades and Inquisitions combined. (Look up Kennedy's references in What If Jesus Had Never Been Born? if you want.) Even today hundreds if not thousands of Christians around the world are being killed for professing their faith, not much different than in Nero's empire. Injustice is endemic in humanity as a race, not just in "religious" people. God calls it "sin".
Calling myself a tomato wouldn't make me one. The Branch Davidians were very clearly not Christians. All Christian denominations agree on certain core beliefs, and there is freedom to differ on particulars.
Well put. Nice and succint.
Socialism will never work in the real world. People aren't inherently charitable. If there's no incentive to work hard (personal gain) why should you? Just ride on the gov't. Which means to get any work done at all, the gov't has to step in and force the population to work.
The sound of the name makes it seem that this candidate is from MinnesOta or Yooper Michigan. "Yah shoor, I'm Nonov DeObov. Voot fer me at de polls."
Of course, the real problem is the voting system, as Katz points out. Until we get this sorted out, nobody has a chance of making a meaningful change to the American political landscape. All those third parties with such interesting thoughts? Forget about it until it's actually possible to get them elected, and that means removing the fear aspect* from voting.
I don't know if it will make a whit of difference, but I wrote a letter to the editor (Des Moines Register) yesterday concerning this very issue. We need to change the system, and get Instant Runoff Voting in place by 2004. Only then will the machinery be in place to effect real change. Maybe the letter will actually get printed. We'll see. In any case, I urge you to do the same. Get involved, even if it's only in a small way. Go to the polls November 7.
*Fear aspect: Being afraid that supporting a third party candidate as a matter of conscience will help elect the "mainstream" with ideals most unlike your own, a direct consequence of our stupid plurality-wins voting system.
I swear, the first time I saw this I thought it said "pant scam". I thought to myself, "It's just what it looks like? Why would anyone want to scam somebody's pants???" I kid you not. I guess I'm just not into the whole webcam thing.
Fer cryin' out loud. Can you split hairs any finer? "It's not written in the law of the country, only in the document that established the country in the first place, so I don't think it applies." Puh-leeze.
I think the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are pretty core to the Constitution.
What is it about the Reform and Green parties that earns them better-than-typical-3rd-party status at sites like issues2000.org and webwhiteblue.org? More and more I am seeing these candidates presented as "real" candidates in web forums while other 3rd parties are left in the "other" column. (Of course, they're all ignored by mainstream media.) What's the deal? Why not equal treatment for all?
I'm not trying to troll, here. If someone could explain why Buchanan and Nader have such (media) appeal, I'd appreciate it. I'd really like to know. Maybe I've overlooked something.
No. The .net TLD was for network providers. AOL should be a .net since they are a commercial entity whose primary function is to provide 'net access. OTOH technology.web might be a Slash site for discussing HTTP, XML, etc. It's on the web and it's about the web.
Or maybe .web is just for sites on the web that don't fit any other TLD category.
Um, which religion? Christianity? Judaism? Islam? Oh wait, all those religions say that marriage is between a man and a woman.
You're right, though, the question is about sovereignty. The CP believes that the Founders wrote the Constitution with this fact in mind: only God is truly sovereign. All authority vested in us as stewards derives from Him. Man is subject to God, and the further the political power is removed from the individual, the worse it is.
So the CP isn't for "absolute state sovereignty" but rather for keeping gov't accountable to the people, who are in turn accountable to God. Smaller gov't is better gov't. The gov't has legislated morality before, such as when polygamy was outlawed. Family is the basic unit of gov't, and a good gov't has a vested interest in seeing strong families.
You know, that's a very good point. Since most people think the choice is between Bush and Gore, they will do exactly like you said, not understanding how the voting system works. (They don't even understand the current one.) Someone who wants Bush but hates Gore, and knows nobody else, may end up electing McReynolds. Wouldn't he be in for a rude awakening?
I think Instant Runoff would be the way to go. Three choices should be sufficient.
How the electoral votes are distributed (winner-takes-all or percentage-split) is determined by your own state. This particular problem is not the fault of the Electoral College itself. If you want the minor candidates fairly represented in your state, take it up with your state legislators!
You know, my dad says the same things.
But you know what else? Every race is going to be a close race. Every election is going to have alot at stake. So the question is: when are you going to get around to supporting the principles you believe in? That's the question I asked myself, and decided that, in good conscience, I couldn't not vote for Phillips (and whatever other CP candidates that happen to be running in my district, which is unfortunately none).
Then you're not aware of Howard Phillips, running for the Constitution Party. He recognizes that the federal gov't does have a role, but the constitutionally-limited scope is much smaller than the present one.
No, Phillips would say that the federal gov't has no business telling schools what to teach. That power is not delegated to the federal gov't by the Constitution. This particular decision should be left to the states and/or individual school boards.
My personal thought on the matter is that both should be taught as theories. Do we know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, how the universe began and how life started on the earth? No...we don't have any witnesses or any way to observe or recreate it. Good science is open to all possibilities.
And here's Howard Phillips of the Constitution Party, from an interview...
Ah, another victim of revisionist history. There is a substantial amount of evidence indicating that most of the Founders were indeed Christians.
I am not homophobic. Homonauseated, perhaps.
Now a bit from the CP platform...
Good for you! Though Nader is about as far as possible from my ideal candidate, I applaud you for voting your conscience. People like you (and me) make the system really work the way it's supposed to. That's what a representative-democratic republic is about.
Federal funding? No, thanks! I'm going to vote for a candidate that refuses subsidies from people who don't agree with him. It's called "liberty of conscience". You shouldn't be compelled to support something you don't believe in.
How dare Nader presume he can take a portion of my tax money, just because enough other people like him! That would be like Hitler taking my money to build his war machine just because enough people (the Germans) liked him.
Maybe she thought you had an accent and were trying to say, "Neither."
Funny, because that's exactly what Christ says. However, that must be applied consistently. And if you apply it consistently, you find that He's told you "have" to do certain things. But, only if you really want to love people. You're free not to love if you so choose.
I love everybody, including the unborn. I can't let my love for woman X (expressed in being supportive of her choices) override my love for baby Y (expressed in my desire that he lives). Life is more fundamental than liberty.
In my worldview, life is precious. If you view life as precious, and advocate loving others (as you claim), the only logical and self-consistent result is that you be pro-life. I consider myself "pro-choice" too (inasmuch as liberty is good) but no one's "choice" to murder another is justifiable.
See my response to LordNimon above. I'm not going to repeat it here.
Um, hello? The US was founded by Christians trying to escape religious persecution. These same Christians wrote an anti-establishment (of state religion) clause into the Bill of Rights.
Phillips believes in that. (It's the Constitution party for a reason.) Removing barriers to posting the Ten Commandments is nowhere near to establishing Christianity as a state religion. It's simply removing gov't from controlling education, something it has no constitutional grounds to do in the first place. The sooner you recognize that, the better off we'll be.
Your rights are safer with a God-fearing man as president than without.
That's a great idea, certainly better than my poll suggestion. The question is, who is the Hero Network that does this? BTW, were you aware than Freedom Channel already does something like this online? Not as good as TV of course, but better than nothing.