Where are all my liberal brothers and sisters?!?! [Archive] - HP Deals, Computer Coupons And Bargains

colossus

05-23-2000, 06:57 AM

Yeah, High education leads to conservativism because you're generally content with the way things are since you've "made it" in the world. If you're bagging groceries at Lucky's and working as a pimp you might be a bit disgruntled with life http://www.gotapex.com/ubb/smile.gif

The irionic thing is that the IVY LEAGUE schools tend which charge ridiculous tuition and provide some of the snottiest atmospheres around produce liberal graduates. Before I get attacked, this is what I mean. Usually the parent who had to work to make the money is Republican because he/she thinks its possible to succeed with the way the system is. The children of these people see unjustice with American society and decide that they must change things. Funny thing is they spend $160K becoming educated to help the poor http://www.gotapex.com/ubb/smile.gif

I try to take a pragmatic approach to everything. I think abortion is murder. In med school they teach you a fetus is living, and a woman who endangers her child could be charged. At the same time, I think a woman has the right to choose. Why? If she doesn't want the baby, it won't be cared for, and that will be a problem for the baby, the parent, and all of society. Is it worth hurting a child their entire life because you want to "Save" them?

Another example. Gun control. Well, if the majority of American populace didn't work at Staples and had a clue about what was going on in the world they wouldn't use guns. Sure violence occurs, and always will occur until nobody is envious of anybody. Never happens. The American populace at large in my opinion is just plain stupid as I have seen compared to people in other countries. I personally would like to own a gun and blow off the guys' head who try's to break into MY house. Of course I would go to jail and that would serve no purpose of me being a physician.

Why don't politicians ever just sit down and argue the actual pros and cons anymore. This is how the old civilizations used to do it. I still love this country, and would defend it at almost any cost. I just think a large group of Americans needs to stop learning the latest Budweiser commercial and find out why those things from China are so cheap.

Off soapbox.

------------------
Ço£o§§ü§ - yeah you can read into it...

Chief Broom

05-23-2000, 09:42 AM

Yea Minx i guess your right about education=conservatism.... But Collusus is also correct about ivy league schools producing liberals. Actually I've heard countless times that the higher you go up in the education system, the more liberal the professors tend to be. Also, the student body as a whole in higher education tends to be VERY liberal. I guess the conservatism hits after they make their first 100 grand right?? http://www.gotapex.com/ubb/wink.gif

Colossus, you have nice complicated views on the issues....Even if i don't agree with some of them, you gotta appreciate the fact that serious thought was put into them. I've found that most people's views on any of the major issues tend to be simplistic and LOUD.

And you can blame simple stupid politicians on the simple stupid media. TV and all forms of mass media have ****ed up the entire poltical process.

Hopefully one day we'll all realize how to use the television to actually IMPROVE politics. It's funny that TV has been around so long, yet no one really understands the proper ways to use it. Entertainment is a grand thing, but whatever happened to information??!

My turn to step off the soapbox! http://www.gotapex.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

ProMinx

05-26-2000, 12:56 AM

wow...colossus cetrainly has quite a view on this subject...oh well. My main reason that i am a republican is that I cannot agree with the legality or morality of an abortion, except in extreme cases. I also do support republican (decreased) taxing (probaaly formed because i believe that i'll be fitting in the top tax income bracket sooner or later). Well...that's all i have to say.
ProMinx

lisu24

05-26-2000, 10:38 AM

I'm liberal and I'm a lesbian...and I'm Asian and my parents are Republicans. Funny thing is that I went to the most conservative liberal arts college in California...and I discovered my sexuality in college. Silly thing. http://www.gotapex.com/ubb/smile.gif

lisu24

05-26-2000, 11:40 AM

Besides all that, I don't care who you sleep with as long as you don't care who I sleep with. I think that being gay doesn't make you non-human...we have feelings too! http://www.gotapex.com/ubb/smile.gif I'm liberal but not an extremist. I believe in more gun control! And abortion...I believe in choice even though I couldn't do it.

colossus

05-26-2000, 11:51 AM

Thank you Chief Broom! If more people were like you maybe politicians would actually have some issues to discuss.

What is the ultimate goal of any society. To advance, to learn, to raise the level of living of its people. Republican or Democrat, the ultimate goal should be to help people. What school of thought you take on this depends on what your parents think, whether or not you rebel against them, and how much you care.

The reason I'm Republican is I tend to be very conservative in my pragmatic views. I tend to think people today in this country rely on others too much, and that results in a weak social and moral structure.

My parents came to this country with what amount to $100 US dollars in about 1974. My mom worked illegally under somebody else's name. My dad was a full time student and worked in teaching positions. But they both were educated. My mom had a MS, and my dad did his PhD at USC. I went from living in one of the worst areas of the country (South Central LA) to what is known as the most culturly diverse city in the nation and the 2nd richest per household income of any suburban city in the nation 2nd to Beverly Hills (Cerritos, CA). How did we do this? Well, my dad worked his ass off, and still pulls a 60 hour week. My mom took care of me and my sis. Not once did we use any social program. Now my parents have been debt free since 1985 and can easily retire without Social Security.

This does not mean that I don't think poor people need help. Not everybody can be "lucky" like my dad, or have his education level. Maybe they have health problems or a disability. It just seems odd that if a 3rd world country like India or China can produce people like my dad, why do people in this country complain of lack of opportunities. At least we have electricity 24/7 here even in the crappiest of neighborhoods. Back in my dad's hometown they get about 3 hours of electricity a day now, back when he grew up there was none!

Same thing for racism. I understand that people make fun of others and discriminate. Hell, even I discriminate. If I didn't that would mean I would be clueless. But I discriminate by a person's behaviour rather than their looks. That's something growing up in LA teaches you. My dad has been discriminated against tons of times, but he doesn't bitch about it. You just work harder and show that you are better than what others perceive you to be. That's the only way to erase negative impressions of people. Using a qouta in the past was a good idea. The only way an initial change could be made is if it was forced. It's like overcomming the static coefficient of friction for you Physics people. Now that change is occuring, quotas should be removed. If people have really changed and become open to ideas, the quotas serve no purpose other than to polarize and anger people. I am upset because I was kept out of some medical schools simply because my ethnic group is overepresented in the school.

When I see Republican and Democrats argue over something like welfare reform it makes me sick. Both sides have something to gain. Republicans can cut what they think is "wasteful spending". Democrats can make a social program that seem wasteful more efficient. Yet they fight because some representative wants to slip a line in saying his state should get a tobacco subsidy, and another rep wants an oil refinery built at government expenise.

Sad, there are no human altruistic people. There have to be other like me who know they wouldn't be corrupted if they got into office. Hell, I think those Senators should be paid 10x what they get. It's jack squat compared to the latest baseball or NBA deal. One Shaq alone could pay all of Congress's salary. Yet people don't whine when they buy Laker tickets.

Chief, you're right on about education. Probably I say this because as a kid (until age 10) PBS was my favorite channel. The news hour, Nova, 321 Contact, you name it, I watched it. Maybe that's why I'm capable of seeing bias in almost anything.

Knowledge is power. No really it is. You could have all the money in the world, but a somebody who is able to speak to the people and let them know what is going on - that person has control. This was JFK and Ronald Reagan (pre Alzheimer progression).

------------------
Ço£o§§ü§ - yeah you can read into it...

lisu24

05-26-2000, 01:06 PM

It would be nice to have less taxes, but the problem with that I see with that is that people who make more money can part with a little bit of it and not have much of a lifestyle change. I know that some countries tax over 90% on people who make over a million a year and that's very extreme. However, those countries also can support everyone on welfare because of this. I think that unemployment benefits are good if that person is honestly trying to get another job, but it's the people who exploit the system and decide that they're never going to work and get by on the government that bother me. I guess that I don't like free-loaders. ;) Unless you're talking about deals. Hehehe. I worked hard for everything that I have today, as did my parents before me and I've been working every day(you know what i mean) of my life since I was around 17, and now I'm 25 and it doesn't look like it's ever going to end. I have a problem with welfare moms who decide to have kids so their welfare checks get bigger. Sometimes the ideas about enforcing birth control (tube tying) on welfare moms just makes sense to me...but who knows, I'm ranting. :)

Sjarred

05-26-2000, 01:18 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Knowledge is power. No really it is. You could have all the money in the world, but a somebody who is able to speak to the people and let them know what is going on - that person has control.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I agree with this, and history can probably proved this to be true. Almost all revolutionary leaders of the past had the knowledge and ability to speak to their people.

[This message has been edited by Sjarred (edited 05-26-2000).]

[This message has been edited by Sjarred (edited 05-26-2000).]

Chief Broom

05-27-2000, 11:00 AM

I can tell you the problem with welfare in this country. The U.S. is totally half-assing the job, no wonder the system doesn't seem to work. Look at countries in Scandanavia that have a huge social welfare system, look at Canada. My Uncles and Aunts moved to Canada awhile back and when a few of them got really ill, free hospital! Healthcare is totally free...how nice is that?

You either gotta commit yourself to something, or you are going to screw it up...If you half-ass welfare, nobody is going to be happy on either side of the argument. If you pretend to support gay-rights, while at the same time sniffing the air in disdain because you don't approve of the "lifestyle", chances are you are doing more harm than good...People need to grow some spine, and start to work on the real problems in society.

I honestly could care less what your political orientation is. If you are truly interested in helping the sick and poor, and if you really have some potentially effective plans...then great!! It just so happens that i see this FAR more often in liberals, which is why I my heart bleeds like a stuck pig. I have seen some conservatives who have similar ideas though, and I've always liked 'em.

Politicians half-ass everything they do. It's all about accomodating this, and appeasing that. Man grow a spine and DO something!! If you claim that you are for all the people (which every politician does), then you better support all of them as well! That should be regardless of race, religion, or sexual orientation.

Instead what does America have for a political system...We have a Justice system that discriminates against people of color (Rampart anyone?) as well as a system that treats gay men and lesbians as if they were second-class citizens. We have an incredible amount of homelessness...right next to huge corporate office buildings. And we have a totally corrupted welfare state which completely undermines the possibility that this country might actually do as promised and support every walk of life within its borders.

Everyone needs to stop talking about doing something, and go out and actually walk the walk.

okay...im getting off my soapbox now haha...

colossus

05-27-2000, 11:45 AM

Chief brought up a good point that I thought I was the only one who had this idea. Politicians are always trying to avoid stepping on feet. The reason our government is so stable is because we have this system of "Check and Balances" that keeps legislature from going to one extreme or another.

I'm wondering in this day and age, where America thinks democracy is the only way to rule, if there would be any objection to one party ruling for a while. Half ass is the proper way to describe the way the government is working. It was good for 200 years when the nation was starting and people were unstable. I think it's time for a change. One party should be allowed to set all the legislation. This may sound crazy, but it would definitely accomplish the ultimate goal.

Either that has to happen or the parties have to stop following their beliefs regardless of how unpractical they are and support bipartisanship which promotes useful, meaningful legislation.

This is why I would rather see a PhD in engineering and a physician and a Home Depot employee elected to Congress over 3 lawyers who know how to enlarge egos, gain political clout, and entrench their position for a lifetime of power.

Maybe when I get sick of HMOs I'll decide to run for Congress or something 10 years down the line. I guess I would be a reform party candidate hehe.

------------------
Ço£o§§ü§ - yeah you can read into it...

Chief Broom

05-30-2000, 05:34 PM

Well actually there might be a more fair answer to the problem colossus, because there is now way we could legitimately choose one party to do the controlling.

The problem is that we have a 2 party system, and that we have elections that make sure that this is the only viable system. No one wants to vote for a third party because it is "throwing away a vote." What if we had a system based on proportional representation instead? If you allow a State like California to have 50 representatives, and 10 percent of the total vote goes to a fringe party, then 5 of the representatives should come from that party.

This way the parties wouldnt all be aiming for the center, there would be a far bigger chance of winning for the third parties. Consequently, more rightist and leftist views will be expressed in public. Maybe we could actually talk about issues from different perspectives for once!

Sjarred

05-30-2000, 08:04 PM

Time for a proportional electorial system http://www.gotapex.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

Sjarred

05-31-2000, 12:33 AM

Let's bring on the petition!!!!

colossus

05-31-2000, 01:01 AM

Time for a flat tax rate. This would help the people who need it the most - literally.

If you TRULY don't have a lot of money to spend, then you're not getting "taxed" as they say. If you're a rich fat cat, you're only penalized if you behave like one. How can anybody other than H&R block and all those useless accountants object to this?

They're the only reason the Tax code isn't reformed. It would seem like a simple thing to do huh? A simple solution right? Well, it would be. Unfortunately the people in office have no brains and are swayed by lobbyists for accountants.

You could pretty much do away with the IRS if there was a flat tax.

------------------
Ço£o§§ü§ - yeah you can read into it...

revil

05-31-2000, 02:52 AM

I think we should start a petition to outlaw idiots in the us govt.

bNorrish

06-05-2000, 03:50 PM

Nobody here that I can find has admitted to being a democtat... whats the deal? Gore ain't that stupid is he?

bNorrish

06-05-2000, 03:53 PM

sorry, I meant democrat... darn non ergonomic keyboard...

lisu24

06-05-2000, 04:58 PM

I'm a democrat, for lack of a better party. Hey, I'm an useless accountant...

Oh wait, I'm just a credit card fraud accountant...I don't do taxes...heheh.

Chief Broom

06-06-2000, 12:01 AM

I'm a Democrat...too bad Gore isnt!! Dude he had Pete Knight (also known as SATAN...the man is a bastard homophobe "christian") on his staff for over a decade. The man is only called an environmentalist because his PERSONALITY resembles a tree. Gore is a total closet Republican..what happened to the good old liberal democrats of the past???!

I voted for Bill Bradley, too bad no one else did (apparently). But despite all this I'm forced to vote for either a Dem. or a Republican (since we dont have proportional representation...haha we wont go into that again). I would lick up pig vomit before voting for George "pull the switch" Bush Jr., so Gore it is!!

lisu24

06-06-2000, 03:15 PM

Gore sucks. I voted for Bradley. But there's no way I'm voting for Bush. I don't want the religious right controlling my life.

colossus

06-06-2000, 04:43 PM

Hey, Republicans don't want Gore either. The guy is a Shmuck! If you read my thing on his proposed modem tax and now his push for technology yet at the same time saying he's Mr. Tree Hugger, you'll see he as MPD (Multiple Personality Disorder). Funny I should say this since the guy has no personality.

I wouldn't mind Bill Bradley in office. He seems to have some agenda and goals rather than theories like Gore.

Give Bush a chance guys. He's much more central than you would imagine. This is why many minorities are considering voting for Bush over Gore. I don't think Bush has open the backing of the Religious right who I don't care to see Lobby either.

------------------
Ço£o§§ü§ - yeah you can read into it...

lisu24

06-06-2000, 04:49 PM

i think i just hate politicians...they kiss everyone's ass too much for me to trust any of them. lol. http://www.gotapex.com/ubb/wink.gif

[This message has been edited by lisu24 (edited 06-07-2000).]

Chief Broom

06-08-2000, 06:04 PM

I think George Bush is supported by minorities (latinos at least) because he "speaks spanish" Im latino and i know tons of latinos who were considering voting for him on the sole basis of him "understanding them." This is not true, the justice system is racist in terms of the death penalty, and George Bush is so pro-death that its disturbing.... Once the latinos I knew started to understand Bush's platform, they quickly changed their mind!!

lisu24

06-12-2000, 01:36 PM

I'm worried about the election because Bush keeps changing his mind and then contradicting himself in terms of minorities and gay and lesbian rights, etc etc. I refuse to vote for someone who can't make up their mind. I respected McCain because he said what he thought, and he didn't try to sidestep the issues.

06-12-2000, 01:47 PM

whatever, you republicans are the ones who couldn't manage to get John McCain the nomination, its your own faults.

TanItAll

06-14-2000, 01:18 AM

uh.... I pleaded the 5th.....

renots

06-19-2000, 01:00 AM

Of course none of the candidates will even broach the subject of why there is still so much secrecy in government and why so much is still being spent on the Military, a decade after the 'end' of the cold war. Are there some little green (or grey) men, perhaps an 'outer threat from space' in old Ronnie's words, that warrants this continued state of readiness for ???

:0)

Kenas

06-19-2000, 10:02 PM

I conceder my self somewhere between because I like different ideas from both sides. Let say I want Al Gore win over Bush (can't stand his stupidity), however in NY State I would not like to see Hilary Clinton. I would prefer to see Rudy Guliani (but he is out). The things I don't like about Republicans is antiabortion and gun control ideas. But Lasio (the new candidate for senate from NY) understood that in NY you can't go for senate with pro-life ideas. So he is not that bad. And the thing I don't like about liberals...when they fight each other, they get TOO liberal which eventually can bring to anarchy.

colossus

06-20-2000, 02:29 AM

Hmm, I wasn't going to post in here not because it's not worth talking about, but it's hard to convey large amounts of data and ideas over text.

Anyways, I would see Republicans lead to more Anarchy. They are the ones who push for a weaker Federal government and stronger States, and less governmental control. Just their support for gun ownership alone promotes people to be in open objection to suppression.

I also see Gore as the idiot. Forgot what the media does to Bush. I've met both Bush and Gore in person. Bush didn't impress me with anything of what he said, but Gore blew me off when I asked him a question. He wasn't even walking or anything, he was sitting at a table. I confronted him about his modem tax issue in '91 and he walked his way out of the question. Gee, I wonder where he learned it from.

To get an unbiased interpretation (if that's possible) of politics, you need to watch shows that have both parties on and talking instead of reports saying their script. "Meet The Press" and Sam and Cookie's show are good to see people debate. PBS's news hour is also good.

Although I believe Clinton perjured himself, I think it's one of the least of his legal violations. The fact that he compromised national security by selling technology to China which later passed to Pakistan just plain pisses me off. I love how the media spent a whopping 3 second news clip on this. The US populace doesn't even know who the Secretary of Defense is yet they know what magazine Lewinsky posed in. Hmm, where are the media's priorities?

Now Pakistan is armed with weapons from our lovely Afgan intrussion - weapons made by the US used to commit terrorism against the US. Isn't it a just peachy http://www.gotapex.com/ubb/smile.gif The Republicans were responsible for this BTW, so I'm not happy with their conduct at all. Even after this however, for Clinton to allow sales of Weapon targeting systems to China was just wrong. Technology that now aims their missiles at ME in Los Angeles http://www.gotapex.com/ubb/smile.gif I guess I can look forward to a more accurate death http://www.gotapex.com/ubb/smile.gif

Does anybody see a problem with the media? I guess that's why I want my sister to go into journalism - to make a difference instead of reporting the fluff everybody wants to hear.

------------------
Ço£o§§ü§ - yeah you can read into it...

renots

06-20-2000, 04:52 PM

What gets me about the term "Terrorism" is that it is always used in regards to actions instigated by nonauthorized forces. When its official and onbudget it is known as an "action" or "conflict". Now what I wonder is, do you think Bill Gates is building his own little island empire ala Dr Evil/JamesBondVillainofyourchoice, and having done so, would he have enough influence to have his power grabbing manuevers labeled Terrorist Actions or would they be merely a Military Conflict? Obviously
Bill is just warming up :0)

renots

06-20-2000, 05:37 PM

On the Topic of Liberals and Conservatives, I would say the majority of Americans share some of both traits, in that we all have some respect for the past while keeping an open mind that things CAN be better(Unless of course you're in the top .4% and things are already pretty darn good as it; so good you can bribe another 15% of the people to keep you the top .4% and suppress any information that might ruin the equation. After all we would have to pity the rich if they only had 1/2 as much. I mean, that might mean they could only fly business class, and we know that just wouldn't be acceptable; that would mean having to fly next to people who actually have to work for their money, rather than having been born into it. But of course this is a Taboo subject and No one must mention it or otherwise things might have to change)

No, the America I grew up in was one that idealized Self Determination and the Pursuit of Happiness and not the bastardized versions flogged on that one eyed monster.

Of course these are strange concepts to hold in the current political arena; no mainstream political party actually wants to get into these touchy subjects because too many groups are paying them too much money look the other way.

Luckily we can turn to the people that actually founded this country to see what they really saw for us. Masons or whatever they believed in a vision that blew away the realities of their time.

They certainly didn't forsee the huge money trough washington has become; for the most part they detested the unjust institutions that seeked to dominate their lives and wanted nothing more than to work or rest without someone else, especially not a monolithic backward entity thousands of miles away, telling them what they HAD to do.

How representational is a system where you only need to bribe the majority of less than 500 reps and 100 senators(so distinguished because they come at 5X the cost) and spend a little bit more to keep the television/media brainwashed masses satiated with cheap fifth rate tripe(and the occasional 'good' show, so you can have something to point to and say 'wait a minute its not all crap' so you can convince yourself you are not wasting all your time, just most of it), so they will do whatever the television tells them is right, because as television tells them, its really not worth the effort to think more than 30 seconds about anything, otherwise your head might hurt.

You need all those brain cells to process the the 300 inane realites per hour being pummeled at you; of course unless its PBS and then it will only be 1o inane realities per hour.

Give your mind a break from mass media; if you're going to have a monitor in your house use it for movies or internet. After you have cut yourself off from most forms of crap media for a month go back and look over the sacred cows of both political parties and realize how most of it is to keep people seperated and confused so they will be more susceptible to the Corporations who fund them.

The things that matter are preserving resources for future generations and making sure this country doesn't become an Orwellian nightmare where the proverbial They can come to your house and take you away just because they didn't like what you had to say.

This can be accomplished by rolling back most income tax on income under $100,000 in the form of a 100% rebate that would come one year after taxes were paid, on April 15. This rebate would be split between the state and local levels and would cover things such as Mass transportation, Education, and local information networks(i.e. Libraries). The Feds would still get their money, they would just have to give most of back after a year. Win-Win for everyone except the special interest groups who are getting fat as it is.

:0)

[This message has been edited by renots (edited 07-04-2000).]

Timotheus

06-23-2000, 11:30 AM

renots - that is just one darn wierd and convoluted post. I'm dizzy from reading it.

Gun Control - private citizens should have the right to own their own guns. What could possibly be wrong with that? Most gun crime is committed by criminals who stole the guns or obtained them illegally anyway. So colossus, you're telling us to give up our guns, so that us law abiding citizens will have no defense against criminals who already flaunt the several hundred gun laws on the books? I don't think so!!

Abortion - it's murder plain and simple. Regardless of "the right of a woman to choose" it's still murder. Last I checked murder was wrong. If you can live with that you are pro choice, if not, you should be pro life. I wish people would quit skirting the crux of the issue. It's not about "choice", it's not about "fetuses", it's about unborn babies with the potential to accomplish great things in this world....YES, Even if their born into an unloving home!!!! If you don't want to have a baby, USE PROTECTION OR ABSTAIN.

Government - sheesh, what a bunch of cynics. Last I checked we still elect our representatives in this republic we call America (which is not a Democracy)!! If the people organize at the grass roots level, and choose to unite, they can vote anyone out of office, lobbyist money or not! Regarding a 3rd party....if Minnesota can elect an idiot like Ventura then anything is possible.

Homosexuality - I am not anti-gay, even though I believe the behavior is immoral and contrary to nature. (God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve). And, yes you can be against the behavior in principle, and not be an anti-gay bigot...my brother is gay so I should know! I still love him as much as I ever have. Many Gay people cannot handle someone thinking that they are behaving immorally or wrong, so they stereotype and label anyone who disagrees with them as and ANTI GAY BIGOT! A HOMOPHOBE, or whatever!!

sbp - why are Christian jokes cool? If you really believe that you are guilty of the same stereotypical attitudes that people who make gay jokes are guilty of. Talk about hypocritical!

well, that's my 2 cents.

[This message has been edited by Timotheus (edited 06-23-2000).]

MaggieOK

06-23-2000, 11:40 AM

I agree with Tim on every issue in his last post, 100%.. I'm just too lazy to type it all out.

I would like to add however that not only do we need guns for the reasons he mentioned but also our right to bear arms is also to protect ourselves from our own government. The revolutionary war was a war against our OWN government, thus one of the reasons the constitution gave us the right to own guns for future conflicts.

I just woke up from a nap and my brain is fuzzy so I hope that made sense.

Maggie

Timotheus

06-23-2000, 11:51 AM

right on Maggie!! I thought about that then forgot to write it!

By the way, how's that precious little one doing? My youngest turned 2 months old last weekend and we are starting to get 6+ hours of sleep in a row! :-)

colossus

06-23-2000, 02:53 PM

3 years ago I would have said word for word everything Tim said. After working with patients in hospitals and seeing the "Real World" (not TV show) I've come to change my opinions slightly.

Gun Control - I too think private citizens should be allowed to have guns. Unfortunately the lawyer happy justice system penalizes civilians who follow the law. If your dog bites somebody breaking into your house, they can sue you for bodily harm and easily win. F that! It's even worse with a gun. Somebody crawls into your house through a window wearing a ski mask and we can't shoot them - it's murder even though you tell them to stop.

I love the concept of civilians owning guns. If theives breaking into houses knew the homeowner didn't face stupid litigation at the other end of the barrel, then they wouldn't be so apt to steal. You think the guy at 7-11 can't rig a shotgun to go off at the push of a button? The way it stands right now though is that people who follow the law are screwed both ways. This is why I think if possible, I would like to see guns disappear off the face of the earth. We have a lot more viscious weapons now anyway hehe http://www.gotapex.com/ubb/smile.gif

Abortion - yes it is murder. Any lawyer will tell you this. Any doctor will have to admit this. If you neglect a fetus at any age or abuse drugs while carrying, the court can and usually charges the parent with some crime of neglect or even murder. My personal opinion is people shouldn't have abortions. But there are times when the woman has to to save her life or the baby is unwanted (ie Rape). In this case I realize a woman has to do what she has to do.

The last thing I want to see is another kid in an orphanage or on the streets cuz some foster parents wouldn't take care of them. I think a life wasted is worse than a life lost. It would actually detract from society. When I evetually marry and have kids I plan on adopting one kid because I know the sorry state of affairs for kids out there, and I wish more people had the concern I share. They can talk Lewinsky all they want, or how high the gas prices are - meanwhile kids are neglected.

I take a libretarian view on some things now like abortion. Personally, I don't like the idea. But hey, it's your life and your kids life. If you don't want the kid, then don't bring them into the world when you know they will be neglected. Save me taxpayer $ and pain in having to see another abused child.

If you've ever seen abused children (ages 1 or 2) who are growing up you'll see how sad it is. These kids are scarred for the rest of their life and can never function normally in society because somebody brought them to this world without love.

Government - Yes, Ventura is not as bright as some of the other career politcians. I applaud that. He doesn't use hit wit and charm to steal and embezel $ from the taxpayer. I genuinely think he always speaks his mind, however offensive he may be at times. At least you know he has no alternative agenda. With Clinton, I can convince him to change his mind by releasing a new gallop poll. What's that about?

Homosexuality - same stance as you Tim. Although I might not have the strong feelings of "immorality" though. If I were gay, I would hate for somebody to tell me that what I felt for somebody else is immoral. I guess this stems from a religious perspective which I don't want to go into.

When this Prop 22 issue came up in CA it really made me think and realize how much this initiative would mean to me if I was gay. 3 years ago I would have been blatantly opposed to it (gay marriages). Now I would have no big problem with it except that guys living in frat houses could claim they're gay just to get some lame tax breaks. People marry to save on taxes, and I would hate for people to abuse a gay marriage law for financial gain at the expense of mocking somebody's else right.

I guess your views change a lot when you meet some gay people and see they're just like everybody else. Only real difference is preferrence which goes against what the majority of society believes in, even what I believe in. But who am I to judge others for something that is an innate quality of themselves?

As far as being Christian, I don't want to start a whole hoopla as we have a topic for that which I don't want to even visit becase it will be full of angry people on both sides of the fence. My parents are Hindu, I guess I am too. One thing that Hindus belive in is a lot of acceptance. This is why I hate the lame unknowning media in this country who points at the small % of religious persecution in India and calls it religious hatred. Whatever.

My parents would prefer I be Hindu. The don't care, however, if I choose to be Jewish or Buhdist or Christian or whatever - as long as I have a faith. I doubt most people who have religious parents could say that.

I spent 6 years in a row studying 6 major religions for 1 year each during Jr high and High School. What I learned is that they are all pretty much the same and have the same basic goals. This may sound offensive to some people, but to me it makes me feel good as it's just one more thing that unites all of humanity. It's like what the Lakers did for LA - no mockery intended.

From this religious studying I have realized that I pretty much share 99% of Christian views and about 95% of Islamic views and so on and so forth. This is probably why I have no problem marrying anybody from any religion.

Ventura called people who rely upon religion weak. Maybe they are, maybe they're not. Religion does give the human being something to lean on. In my view, however, that supports lends itself to more mental stability. That mental stability (peace of mind and being) can prove to make somebody strong as they sit on the 405 in traffic not having a nervous breakdown http://www.gotapex.com/ubb/smile.gif

Hehe, had to end in a funny note. If you ever watch Politcally incorrect with Bill Maher or whatever, you'll see that the people who know least of others are the ones who talk the loudest and get the most emotional. When they get into that state they can't hear anything else. You can't begin to form a valid arguement for your attack until you know what you are attacking. Hey, that's a cool concept, maybe I'll make some cool quote out of it and be like Winston Churchill or Ghandi or JFK or something.

------------------
Ço£o§§ü§ - yeah you can read into it...

MaggieOK

06-23-2000, 05:37 PM

Tim, he's doing great. He turned one month on the 21st. Still sleeping in 3 hour stretches so I am pretty frazzled most of the time. I've learned to just prop up a bottle on a blankie in the middle of the night and go back to sleep. I know that's bad, but sue me! It's 3 AM! http://www.gotapex.com/ubb/smile.gif

I'll post some pics when I get around to recharging my digital camera. Maybe I can even get all 4 kids to hold still long enough to get a group shot. Who knows?

Thanks for asking. Glad you're getting some sleep! Got any pics of the little one?

Chief Broom

06-23-2000, 10:44 PM

Wow, I move out and pack up my computer for a few days and when I come back there's like 8 pages of posts to catch up on!! http://www.gotapex.com/ubb/wink.gif

Colossus, although I don't completely agree with you on everything, I have to bow down to the complexities in your decision making. It's really good to see ideological positioning that isn't based on silly sayings that lemmings spout all the time (Im thinking the Adam and Steve comment boys and girls). Ideas shouldn't be wrapped up in cute tiny little phrases...it cheapens them and it cheapens the struggles of the people you are condemning.

Colossus actually reminded me of something else, he's coming from real life experiences. He talks about how is ideas have changed once he realized that this isn't some stupid politcal debate we can just "blah blah" over....this is about real people's lives. These debates have led to legislation that has changed the lives of millions of people, but that hasn't stopped certain loudmouths from condemning hard choices made by others.

Do you honestly believe that some guy or girl wakes up in the morning and decides that they feel like being persecuted?? Before you make sweeping generalizations about groups of people, try and remember that they are not a GROUP...the people you are "sendin' to hell!!" are real people with hard lives. It's easy to classify people in a group as "homosexuals" or "baby-killers" or "hippies" or just "them"...The tactic worked wonders for Hitler when he dehumanized German Jews!! But don't forget that these people are not a single iota less worthy of anyones love than yourself. When you DO condemn them, do NOT be suprised when they strike back...it hurts to be persecuted, trust me I know.

[This message has been edited by Chief Broom (edited 06-23-2000).]

renots

06-25-2000, 03:32 PM

On the topic of gun ownership I found this interesting posting at http://www.sightings.com/general2/right.htm

The Lessons Of History -
The Founding Fathers On
Right To Bear Arms
By Phyllis Schlafly - The Schlafly Report
June, 2000

* James Madison: Americans have "the advantage of being
armed" -- unlike the citizens of other countries where "the
governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."

* Patrick Henry: "The great objective is that every man be
armed. . . . Everyone who is able may have a gun."

* George Mason: "To disarm the people [is] the best and most
effectual way to enslave them."

* Samuel Adams: "The Constitution shall never be construed .
. . to prevent the people of the United States who are
peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."

* Alexander Hamilton: "The best we can hope for concerning
the people at large is that they be properly armed."

* Richard Henry Lee: "To preserve liberty, it is essential that
the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be
taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."

The chief reason America has remained a free country is the
widespread private ownership of firearms. Individual ownership
of guns made the American Revolution possible. The principal
purpose of the Second Amendment was to maintain our
freedom from government. It is an insult to our heritage to
imply that the Founding Fathers wrote the Second Amendment
just to protect deer hunters.

My good friend, the late Reverend Stephen Dunker, C.M., was
a missionary in China who was imprisoned by the Communists
during the early 1950s. I heard him tell of his experiences
many times. When the Communists first took over the area
where he lived, they appeared to be good rulers. They
established law and order and cleaned up the traffic in drugs
and prostitutes. Then one day the Communist bosses
announced, "You can see that we have established a good
society and you have no need for your guns. Everyone must
come in the night and dump all guns in the town square." The
people believed and obeyed. The next day, the reign of terror
began, with public executions and cruel imprisonments.
Everyone accused of being a "landlord" was dragged through
the streets and executed; a "landlord" was anyone who farmed
his little plot of ground with two water buffalo instead of one.

Gun confiscation leads to a loss of freedom, increased crime,
and the government moving to the left. This has already
happened in England and Australia. After Great Britain banned
most guns in 1997, making armed self-defense punishable as
murder, violence skyrocketed because criminals know that law
abiding citizens have been disarmed. Armed crime rose 10% in
1998. The Sunday Times of London reported on the new black
market in guns: "Up to 3 million illegal guns are in circulation in
Britain, leading to a rise in drive-by shootings and
gangland-style execution." There has been such a heavy
increase in the use of knives for violent attacks that new laws
have been passed giving police the power to search anyone for
knives in designated areas.

In 1996 Australia banned 60% of all firearms and required
registration of all guns and the licensing of gun owners. Police
confiscated 640,381 firearms, going door to door without
search warrants. Two years later, the Australian Bureau of
Statistics reported that all crime had risen and armed robberies
were up 44%.

Miguel A. Faria Jr., M.D., described his first-hand experience in
Cuba. Before 1958, Cuban dictator Fulgencio Batista had all
citizens register their firearms. After the revolution, Raul and
Fidel Castro had their Communist thugs go door to door and,
using the registration lists, confiscate all firearms. As soon as
the Cubans were disarmed, that was the end of their freedom.

Tyrannical governments kill far more people than private
criminals. The Nazis conducted a massive search-and-seizure
operation in 1933 to disarm their political opponents, in 1938 to
disarm the Jews, and when they occupied Europe in 1939-41
they proclaimed the death penalty for anyone who failed to
surrender all guns within 24 hours.

The first line of safety has to be an ability to defend yourself.
In some areas, a woman who is being stalked by her
ex-husband must wait 10 days to buy a gun, even if her life
has been threatened. Some cities criminalize carrying guns for
self-defense but make exceptions for people carrying money or
jewels. Are money and jewels more important to protect than
people's lives?

History teaches us that registration leads to the confiscation of
guns and that is the goal of many gun control advocates. Pete
Shields, founder of Handgun Control Inc., told The New Yorker:
"The first problem is to slow down the number of handguns
being produced and sold in this country. The second problem is
to get handguns registered. The final problem is to make
possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition --
except for the military, police, licensed security guards, licensed
sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors -- totally illegal."

Atlanta public-safety commissioner George Napper told U.S
News, "If I had my druthers, the only people who would

reg

06-25-2000, 03:32 PM

colossus

06-25-2000, 04:53 PM

Thanks for the history lesson. I read most of your post which I can say had a pretty similar theme to it.

I have one objection to it though. You're living in the past. Humanity as we know it has changed to such a point that certain laws need not even be made in most parts of the world. Why not let every citizen in the US own a nuke? That will definitely keep the government from taking their houses hehe.

Sorry for the lame sarcasm, but it just seems outdated to me. If most of the founding fathers saw the kind of stuff we have in our world today like TVs, airplanes, and Palms they would think we're some alien species or ghosts or something.

The problem lies necessarily with the gun itself, but the people who are allowed to use them. If the person who wants to shoot a gun were required to multiply 9x13 before they fired off a shot, there would be no drive by shooting. Come on, you know it's true.

My biggest arguement to the previous post is this. I would like to know where you live. Right now I'm in Cerritos - one of the richest communities per household in America and also the most ethnically diverse city in the nation according to LA Times in '92. Just 10 miles from here is Compton, a city so full of gun violence it's preached about in rap songs.

If you live in those gun violence infested cities, and you are not a criminal - you fear for your life. I know, I spend my school year living in Pomona, CA which is like another Compton.

If you work in an ER in Long Beach or USC you will see why guns are not used for hunting dear or even solving disputes between an old fued.

I plan on working in an ER, most likely trauma ER, probably somewhere in LA. Can you honestly tell me that the majority of the people coming in getting shot were shot by law abiding citizens?

If there was a way to control gun usage rather than its availability I would be for it. Talk to the police officers who know a friend who was shot execution style by some punk and see what they think of guns - the same people who use them every day and probably own 5-10 in their house.

As people change, so does the equipment needed to wage "war". I think one Palm pilot or PC with Internet access could be a lot more persuasive for changing history nowadays than a 9 mm.

------------------
Ço£o§§ü§ - yeah you can read into it...

renots

06-25-2000, 07:11 PM

Originally posted by colossus:
Humanity as we know it has changed to such a point that certain laws need not even be made in most parts of the world. Why not let every citizen in the US own a nuke? That will definitely keep the government from taking their houses hehe.

I don't see what weapons of mass destruction have to do with an individual law-abiding citizen having the choice to to defend themselves or not. What we seem to be forgeting is that buying a gun doesn't automatically make someone a blood thirsty homicidal maniac.

The vast majority of gun owners in America do NOT commit crimes against other Americans. In fact if you were to look at preventable deathes in America, car accidents(caused by lack of alternatives in transportation) and overworked/incompetent doctors killing patients seem to rank ahead of gun deathes.

Yes it really sucks that people have to suffer from gun violence and my heart truely goes out to the families that have had to suffer from it, but making more people criminals and preventing law-abiding citizens from the ability to defend themselves( Colossus, you said you lived in Pomona. Did you ever have to call the police for something? Did they come within 5 minutes? 15 minutes? Ever?) is not the answer.

Hell I think we already have enough examples of failed prohibition movements in the 20th century as it is. None of them have succeeded in their stated goals, but all of them have contributed to increased levels of government corruption, violence, and general breakdown of the rule of law.

When the vast majority of Americans have to break one law or other, knowingly or unknowingly, just to get through the day, maybe that means there are already too many useless laws on the books. From what I've seen making something illegal isn't going to stop anyone from doing it; Only an honest educational effort works.

Owning a gun shouldn't be a crime. There are already enough laws to punish people for using guns irresponsibly. Don't legisate any more criminals than we need to.

I live in San Francisco and don't own a gun, but I thank God everyday that we don't live in a Communist nation where we are expected to hand over all responsibility to a faceless monolithic entity who thinks it knows whats better for us.

America evolved the way it did because it was one of the few places on this planet where the governing bodies were forced to respect the will of people.

:0)

[Edited by renots on 11-29-2000 at 01:54 AM]

renots

06-25-2000, 07:29 PM

Originally posted by colossus:
If you live in those gun violence infested cities, and you are not a criminal - you fear for your life. I know, I spend my school year living in Pomona, CA which is like another Compton.

I lived in Washington DC for twelve years, during a time that it was the "Murder Capitol" of the nation. Most of the "fear" I experienced was when I turned on the nightly news; never really was that scared walking around.

In case you missed this point in my previous post:

Tyrannical governments kill far more people than private
criminals. The Nazis conducted a massive search-and-seizure
operation in 1933 to disarm their political opponents, in 1938 to
disarm the Jews, and when they occupied Europe in 1939-41
they proclaimed the death penalty for anyone who failed to
surrender all guns within 24 hours.

[Edited by renots on 11-29-2000 at 01:55 AM]

renots

06-25-2000, 07:52 PM

Originally posted by colossus:

The problem lies necessarily with the gun itself, but the people who are allowed to use them. If the person who wants to shoot a gun were required to multiply 9x13 before they fired off a shot, there would be no drive by shooting. Come on, you know it's true.

The problem doesn't lie necessarily with the car itself, but the people who are allowed to use them. If the person who wants to drive a car were required to multiply 9x13 before they turned that ignition key, there would be no drive by shooting. Come on, you know it's true.

:0)

[Edited by renots on 11-29-2000 at 01:55 AM]

renots

06-25-2000, 07:55 PM

Originally posted by colossus:
As people change, so does the equipment needed to wage "war". I think one Palm pilot or PC with Internet access could be a lot more persuasive for changing history nowadays than a 9 mm.

Completely Agree

:0)

[Edited by renots on 11-29-2000 at 01:56 AM]

renots

06-25-2000, 08:27 PM

Originally posted by colossus:
Time for a flat tax rate. This would help the people who need it the most - literally.

If you TRULY don't have a lot of money to spend, then you're not getting "taxed" as they say. If you're a rich fat cat, you're only penalized if you behave like one. How can anybody other than H&R block and all those useless accountants object to this?

Well I think alot of home owners would see their home prices deflated once the mortgage rightoff disappeared. They might object.

:0)

[Edited by renots on 11-29-2000 at 01:56 AM]

renots

06-25-2000, 08:37 PM

Personally I would be in favor of a violence tax, where media producers had to pay more for violent content, especially television producers. No tax on depictions of sensuality; preferably a subsidy.

Tax Bads Not Goods!

:0)

Timotheus

06-26-2000, 12:21 AM

not really trying to get personal, just find it easier to respond to someone by breaking down what they say into its component parts.

Austin Powers is awesome. My 2 1/2 year old says "Yeah Baby" "Groovy" and "Oh Behave" just like Mike Myers. It's hilarious. I'm so proud! L O L

colossus

06-26-2000, 01:25 AM

Hehe, I have to clarify myself because maybe I rambled on a bit.

My viewpoint seems to have come off that I want more gun control. That's the last thing I want. Part of the problem we have today is the LAWYERs make laws for the gun lobby which they know will never hurt them. Banning assault weapons by name for example was stupid, you ban them by definition. This is why I think a PhD should be required to run for Congress hehe http://www.gotapex.com/ubb/smile.gif

In a Utopian society guns wouldn't be need. LA is far from that. I probably would end up owning a gun when I have a family - of course I will train myself and my family and have it properly stored.

Maybe DC isn't scarry enough. You drive by Crenshaw, or Florence and Normandy in downtown LA at 1 AM and you'll be afraid. I don't know a single one of my friends who isn't afraid to be in that area at night. Because the gangs control the turf, and at 1 AM you better have permission to be there.

Actually, I think the right to drive has gotten to crazy in this country. Everybody should be allowed to drive, but the DMV does a "horrible" job of preventing people from driving. Today a motorcycle cop died of head trauma after being run over by a 71 year old woman who ran a read light. DMV should have saw this coming as the woman wasn't wearing any eyewear and she didn't think she needed glasses to drive. How this got by DMV is what scares me. Driving in LA is probably 1 of the 3 most stressful things in my life - second only to med school and relationships.

With regards to the flat tax, if home owners weren't rewarded for being in debt then this country might be in better financial position. The reason the gap between the poor and the rich increases is the poor haven't been "taught" or "allowed" to save.

The arguements for having national debt (ie it allows Congress to finance public works) is the lamest excuse I've ever heard. The millionaires and billionares of the world didn't become rich by spending more than they make. Corporations for the most part must follow this rule, as do most Americans. Why is the US government allowed to get off the hook.

And this BS about having a budget surplus. How can you call it a surplus when the nation is about 40 years behind on Social Security payments. Once again a failure on the part of Congress to use their brains. Obviously no mathematicians here.

When SS started they started instantly giving away $ to people who were of retirement age but never put into the pot. This may sound cruel on my part, by they leached what people who work today should rightfully earn. Can't trust government to do anything right.

I would rather trust a Billionaire's opinion of how to best save America's economy than some snotty nosed 30 year old brat from Harvard talking econ philosophies of free trade.

Heaven forbid the government rewarded good actions like companies that pollute less to the environment. The ACLU already went bonkers over a bill that proposed a tax cut for companies that show initiative to save the environment.

I know most of Congress is smarter than the average American, but sometimes I wish a logic class would be a requirement to run for office. They do stuff so assinine and backwards it's almost dizzying at times.

For all it's worth though, I still want to live right where I am more than any other place in the world, and I've been to 27 countries.

------------------
Ço£o§§ü§ - yeah you can read into it...

Timotheus

06-26-2000, 08:07 AM

Colossus - Excellent, reasoned posts!! You have obviously spent much time thinking and developing your positions. I admire you for that. It's refreshing to discuss things without people getting all crazy and going off half-cocked.

posted by Chief Broom

It's really good to see ideological positioning that isn't based on silly sayings that lemmings spout all the time (Im thinking the Adam and Steve comment boys and girls). Ideas shouldn't be wrapped up in cute tiny little phrases...it cheapens them and it cheapens the struggles of the people you are condemning.

Chief - first let me say that if this is your only problem with what I said, then we are not so different, you and I. Second, regarding "cute tiny little phrases", if your highly refined intellectualism is offended by such phrasiology, then please accept my apologies. Perhaps it is better phrased "the obvious creation, and/or evolution (if you prefer) of two distinct gender classifications within the species Homo-Sapiens, and the clear intended usage of their respective genetalia (i.e. primarily for the propogation of the species), leads one to deduce that the natural order of sexual orientation is hetero sexual. This being the case, it follows that homosexual orientation is a deviation from the norm (incidentally, one that was actually classified a mental disorder by the APA until the 60's).
Third, I am not "condemning" anyone. I challenge you to find in my post any condemnatory words! Perhaps you believe that anyone who does not condone your ideas, is condemning you? If so, that would be very very illogical.

this is about real people's lives. These debates have led to legislation that has changed the lives of millions of people,

who said it was anything else?

but that hasn't stopped certain loudmouths from condemning hard choices made by others.

that's true, certain people are very condemning and judgmental, and that is wrong! I am not one of your "loudmouths" but I would be interested to know the identity of these "certain loutmouths".

Do you honestly believe that some guy or girl wakes up in the morning and decides that they feel like being persecuted??

Is that a trick question? You can't be serious.

Before you make sweeping generalizations about groups of people

what sweeping generalization?

try and remember that they are not a GROUP...

I have no problem "remembering" that. If you read my post, you would see that my brother is gay. How could I think of my brother as a "group" He's my brother for God's sake!!

the people you are "sendin' to hell!!" are real people with hard lives.

First, I'm not sending or condemning anyone to hell! you will never see me claim to do so. Second, who ever said that this was not about real people, and most real people I know do have hard lives.

It's easy to classify people in a group as "homosexuals" or "baby-killers" or "hippies" or just "them"

it's even easier when the individuals who share a particular behavior or belief system, organize together, march in parades, send out newsletters, write books, etc, etc, ad infinitum, ad nauseum... almost makes you think that they want to form their own group. If by "grouping" you mean "stereotyping" then your advice is prudent -- for everyone. Even yourself!

The tactic worked wonders for Hitler when he dehumanized German Jews!!

you're right, and thank God Hitler didn't win the war!

But don't forget that these people are not a single iota less worthy of anyones love than yourself.

I have not claimed differently and noone on this earth is in a position to do so.

When you DO condemn them, do NOT be suprised when they strike back...

Why do you assume I am, or will be "condemning" "them"? I have not done so, nor will I. Disagreeing with a persons behavior, does not equal condemnation, even if it relates to their "private sexual preferences or actions". If you are honest, you must admit this.

it hurts to be persecuted, trust me I know.

I'm sure it does. I'm sure you have suffered very real pain and heartache caused by uncaring and unthinking individuals. I have been persecuted because of my beliefs as well, as have many other people for many different reasons.

[This message has been edited by Timotheus (edited 06-26-2000).]

Timotheus

06-26-2000, 08:14 AM

Hey Maggie,

Glad everything is going well. Good idea on the nighttime feeding trick!! My wife is nursing so my job is to get the little guy when he wakes up and bring him to bed for snack time, then change the diaper, and put him back to sleep in his crib. I'm like a zombie at 3:00am. Would love to see a photo, saw the one you posted a while back. I will dig around for a good one and send it to you (or post it).

Tim

colossus

06-26-2000, 11:51 AM

Easy there kids. You guys are getting a bit personal. That's why I don't quote anybody hehe.

Anyways, I think you guys are pretty much on the same fence as I am. We hate stupid people who come to office and say one thing without acknowledging that what they are saying is an opinion rather than a rule of sciences.

It also cracks me up how Maggie and Tim have this parental talk in the middle of all this political mumbo jumbo.

OK, my brain is overheating from thinking too much. Time to watch some Austin Powers http://www.gotapex.com/ubb/smile.gif

------------------
Ço£o§§ü§ - yeah you can read into it...

renots

06-28-2000, 04:00 PM

Originally posted by colossus:
With regards to the flat tax, if home owners weren't rewarded for being in debt then this country might be in better financial position.

I agree. It is ridiculous you have to go into debt for 30years just to own a home. Without the tax rightoff houses would be alot more affordable.

[Edited by renots on 11-29-2000 at 01:48 AM]

Chief Broom

07-01-2000, 08:21 PM

wow timotheus, I'm glad you dissected my argument and made such an erudite reply to my arguments...Unfortunately the only part of it that was directed at you was the part about "Adam and Steve". The rest of it was presented as a contrast between complicated thinking (Colossus) and lemming-like opinion following (watch the network news...you'll see what I mean).

I won't respong to most of your post because you are responding to criticisms I never directed at you. I don't honestly believe that you invented the "Adam and Steve 'argument'", and the post was directed at loudmouths who attempt to deny unalienable rights to gay men and lesbians (im thinking of certain outspoken members of the Christian Coalition here).

If it is your opinion that homosexuality is biologically abnormal, thats fine. AS LONG AS YOU DONT TAKE AWAY ANYONE'S RIGHTS!! Dude, if you leave others to live their lives with the same rights that you have...then you're a great person and a good citizen. I'm sorry if you took my post in the wrong way, as I never intended it to be directed at you. It just so happens that I needed an example of a silly phrase and there was one just up the page! Anyway if I got you unnessarily riled up in any way then I apologize http://www.gotapex.com/ubb/wink.gif

Oh btw, about your sarcastic and overblown comment about my "refined intellectualism"...chill out man, can't we all just get along??? haha oh yeah the Ameircan Psychiatric Association decided to pull the "mental disorder" ID of homosexuality because they determined that it had no basis in scientific fact. Many psychiatrists openly apologized for having gone along with a scientifically unsound theory for such a long time.

jiahau

07-02-2000, 03:43 AM

I'm a "liberal".

This reminds of a test in government class where you would answer some questions and it would tell you if you were a democrat, republican, libertarian...or umm I think populist....or something.

I can't remember what it was but to say someone is of a party seems to generalize WAY TOO MUCH.

As for my feeling on issues

Gay Rights - I don't see why people should deny them of ANY right at all. I remember seeing the proposition that was to ban gay marriages. I wanted to see that shot down.......but it got passed....and really angered me. I mean if two people love each other what the hell is the big deal...
and don't give me that "Well next thing ya know people will get married with "insert favorite animal here". Thats just a ridiculous argument. Lets face it....homosexuals are the way they are because thats WHO THEY ARE.

Gun Control - It all seems pointless. There is a saying that goes along the lines of
"take away guns, and only the criminals would have guns" I mean, I believe it to an extent.....but its the stuff like where kids find loaded guns........thats just really sad.

Abortion - I couldn't possibly understand how I could decide on an a issue that mainly effects women. I mean, I sit and think about politics but every time I think about abortion, I go, well there is no way for me to be a "truly informed" voter on this issue. I can see both sides of the issue.

Flat Tax - ummm no. The rich should pay a higher percentage on their income than the poor. Simply because the cost it takes to live is a flat line. This is not to say that those who work hard and shouldn't enjoy it. But a flat tax is not quite right when it comes to income taxes....

Death Penalty - Totally against it. I don't see how we as a people can condemn a person to death. Yes there are monsters. And jails are filling up pretty quick. But we shouldn't kill. That or maybe I just read Batman too much. Both major candidates support the death penalty. Sigh.............

Religion - Don't have one. Is there a God? Could be.....but I don't think it has anything to do with the way I live my life....
As long as other people don't try to impose their religion on me. It was brought up that maybe the ten commandments should be posted in schools......and The Onion made fun of that by saying....yeah...thats okay, as long as you staple a Bill of Rights to every Jesus in a church.

And as for this fall........

I remember when Clinton was running for president and there were just rumors that he fooled around. Well, those rumors were true. There are rumors about George W. Bush doing crack (as for drugs......I really don't care, what you do to yourself is your own problem, just do it in the privacy of your own home..and let what happen only happen to you). It doesn't bother me. What bothers me is that he doesn't seem to be intelligent. Al Gore isn't my favorite choice. But....I really don't want Bush. Thank god Gore is ahead in the polls in California.

Dave_7

07-02-2000, 06:17 PM

I'm still voting for John McCain.

Dave.

colossus

07-02-2000, 09:09 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by jiahau:
I'm a "liberal".

Flat Tax - ummm no. The rich should pay a higher percentage on their income than the poor. Simply because the cost it takes to live is a flat line. This is not to say that those who work hard and shouldn't enjoy it. But a flat tax is not quite right when it comes to income taxes.....<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why is it that nobody knows what a flat tax is. When I say flat tax, I don't mean a tax that sets a standard taxation rate for all people, I'm using Steve Forbes definition of a Flat Tax. Doesn't anybody read Fortune or Forbes or Smart Money. Geesh.

Anyway, the way it works is just like a sales tax, but the money goes to federal goverment. This way, people who act like they have a lot of money (ie rich people) get penalized as they are taxed when they spend. People who truly can't afford much (ie poor people) don't get taxed as they don't buy a lot. This way if you buy a Civic you might be giving say, $1000 or $2000 to the feds. This would be fair as the money it took in federal and state infrastructure to produce this "cheap" vehicle is relatively low. If you bought a Viper, a car that needs tons more materials, R&D, and expenditure, you get taxed $10,000 or $20,000. People who don't spend don't have to worry about taxes. If you are broke, then don't worry abotu tax right?

This "flat tax" systems makes the current tax code useless. The problem with this is our lovely Congressman won't be able to slip in subsidies and rewards to their big business friends. Ahh, too bad. The problem is also that lawyers and accountants can't convolute the tax code to made it indecipherable.

With regards to Bush/Clinton/Gore. Clinton did what 20-80% of the men and women do in this country - cheat on their spouse. Only makes him more like the everyday man. Personally, I can't stand people who do this, and I would never cheat on somebody. Then again, I'm not married so I'll reserve judgement - who knows what horror he faces with Hillary every night.

Bush admitted to doing crack - just like Clinton admitted to pot in his own messed up confession/denial. You can't, however, say that you don't care what these people do in the privacy of their own homes. Once they are sworn into office, they become dependent on public payroll like police and city government. You have a right to know what goes on in the White House as it is a public building. If national security is deemed at risk, then it is up to the Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense to decide what info is released. This is why these 2 positions are so important. We have to right to expect Bubba not be "entertaining" himself while on the phone with a foreign head of state. Afterall, we pay his salary regardless of how much money he has coming into office.

What the media chooses to focus on it's its own business. When shows like "The View" pop up and pay the hosts 10x what Cancer researchers get paid I get sick in my stomach. Please, do we need people talking about the scandal? Is it really a shock?

Bush's track history of doing drugs should be of concern if it wasn't an isolated one time incident. Afterall, if this man is in some hyped up state do you want him controlling the codes to the country's nuclear arsenal? People expect a higher level of professionalism from their airplane pilot then they do of their president. WTF!?!

I think Bush's incident was isolated and is not reflective of his current behavior. In the same manner, I think Clinton hasn't done pot in a while as well.

What scares me is that people watch Jay Leno or "The View" and think Bush is unintelligent. Have you met the man? Some reporter ask him 4 heads of state and Bush knows only 1 of them. Big deal, he's a governor, not M. Albright! If he didn't know who was the police chief of Austin of Houston, that would scare me.

I haven't cared to study Bush's or Gore's platforms as I can guess what they both want to "say" and "do". The problem I find with Gore is that he has been converted from possible leader material into a slimebag politician via Clinton. Watch Stephenopolous (a man who knows Gore all to well now) critique Gore and see how Gore has changed over the past 9 years while with Clinton. Now Gore says everything with a slight of word, or intimation of indredulity. With Bush, I know he means what he says however unpopular it may be. if he insists that every execution was fair, then either he thinks that or wants the press to feel that he thinks it was. He's willing to suffer any political loss from his stand (even though he know death penalty is still popular in this country).

Gore, having become shallower and shallower in the last 10 years has nothing to "stand" on. Environmental laws have gone backwards according to Green Peace and the Sierra Club.

The sad part is the people who vote him into office don't support him. He would normally have the backing of UAW since they are labor, but with this gas hike in the Mid-East states the UAW is now pissed. Will Gore continue to stand for environment of back off to appease the strong labor vote? I haven't seen him make a stance either way even after 6 weeks of having the issue in the "political air".

Americans are also a very hypocritical bunch. They say they want clean air and low cost health care. Well Duh! If you use clean burning fuel you will cut down on Asthma induced via particulates and respiratory infections for the young and elderly. $1 spent of clean gas save maybe $3-$10 in health care costs.

It's a pity the American public can't be explained this as they are literaly to "stupid and blind" to see this. They've been taught to take the penny now in place of the $100 ten years from now. If this may sound like "elitist view", just look at what is going on on Wall Street. As these "kids" come in off of college, get jobs paying $30-$50 and most are single, so they "throw" their money at stocks, and at the first sign of trouble they cry foul. I'm only 24, but I've been watching stocks since age 8. You only make money in the long haul. Sure, you can multiply your profits 400x if you manage them correctly, but very few people have the insight to read the market like that let alone the time.

People are way too into making a fast buck as evidenced by the disgusting SCAMing going on in the deals section. They are literaly willing to commit electronic robbery in hopes if getting a freebie or a quick eBay sale for profit.

Doh, I went way off topic again. Oh well, that should give you guys something to chew on.

Chiefy, my posts aren't complex. I just have a lot of voices in my head and they say all kinds of things to me. "Kill the rabbit" being the most common one http://www.gotapex.com/ubb/eek.gif

I better take my Celexa now, or was it Celebrex...

------------------
Ço£o§§ü§ - yeah you can read into it...

Timotheus

07-03-2000, 08:00 AM

Chief - Truce.

Sorry if I read into your comments too much. Perhaps I hadn't had enough coffee for the day. It's also true that many "liberals" are guilty of the same behavior that many "conservatives" are guilty of - stereotyping. So, I suppose I jumped the gun (there's a strange expression for you - I wonder where that one came from). Anyway, I enjoy a good debate just like you do, and realize the unlikelihood of either of us changing the other's opinions. But it is fun to air it out and if it makes someone else think more seriously about the issues, then I feel that is good enough.

Tim

lisu24

07-03-2000, 08:59 AM

I'm impressed by the quality of the debate in here. http://www.gotapex.com/ubb/smile.gif I personally am a conservative democrat. I usually sit just a shade to the left of the fence.

Gun Control - I'm sickened by the number of children who have been killed by other children whether it's been in schools or on the streets of inner cities. I am personally for any kind of compromise to keep guns out of the hands of children. Make the parents more accountable for keeping the guns away from their kids? Who knows...if I did, I'd be running for office.

Abortion - As a woman, I'm personally for choice because in a case where I got pregnant because of an unpreventable event such as rape, I would want that choice. I just think that the morning after pill is a better solution then waiting to find out if you're pregnant.

Human rights - I think that everyone should be allowed to have the same rights no matter what race or religion or gender or sexual orientation or sexual gender identity they have. I cannot believe in affirmative action because of this. http://www.gotapex.com/ubb/frown.gif One day, I hope to marry my girlfriend, but unfortunately, I can't ever do it in California. I guess I may end up in Vermont one day. http://www.gotapex.com/ubb/smile.gif

Ok, I'm not awake yet, but I thought I'd throw my two cents in. By the way, Steve Forbes talked a little about his flat tax idea at my college graduation, and I'm all for that. I think it was a flat 15% across the board and then a sales tax. It was a great idea IMHO.

renots

07-04-2000, 02:14 PM

Originally posted by colossus:
Clinton did what 20-80% of the men and women do in this country - cheat on their spouse. Only makes him more like the everyday man.

if you've seen a certain list thats been circulating around, you might reconsider that last remark.

[Edited by renots on 11-29-2000 at 02:01 AM]

renots

07-04-2000, 04:24 PM

I'm thumbs down on Gore (http://www.progressive.org/webex.htm#Anchorgore) too, even though I voted for slick willie the last two times.

If Bush promises to fulfill the basic premise of the Bill of Rights and end this 2000 year holy war against the 'different' he'll get my vote. Otherwise it looks like McCain for me.

:0)

[This message has been edited by renots (edited 08-04-2000).]

jstreet

07-04-2000, 04:25 PM

Wow - I really have to say that this is a great discussion - I just started posting in this forum, and this is wonderful to see. I thought I'd add my two cents in as well.

On the elections - Al Gore has no emotions, or feelings. He claimed that he invented the internet. Nobody *really* likes Al Gore. But when you consider the competition, i.e. Bush, Gore is my knight in shining armor. Bush just rubs me the wrong way, and aside from that, I disagree or at least take issue with his stance on the gay and lesbian community (marriage, human rights, etc.), his stance on the death penalty, and so on and so forth. I truly think that he has a good shot at the presidency, which disturbs me, because I don't imagine a lot of good would come from it.

Abortion - I saw a bumpersticker yesterday that sums up what I feel. I believe it said, "If you don't like it, don't have one". I understand the whole taking a life point, but in the end, it's really the woman's choice. A child is an incredible responsibility, and one that I don't think that women such as rape victims should be forced to bear. I do, however, strongly disagree with abortion as a birth control method (i.e. "Let's not use a condom or any birth control, I can always have an abortion).

Gun control - Here, I don't have much to say. I'm not very much aware of current legislation, but all I have to offer is a look at Europe. I spent a few weeks in Spain, and while I was there, I saw no handguns. There was no violence. I walked through Madrid with friend in the middle of the night, unafraid of what I would be were I in New York, for instance. They're certainly not perfect, but things are a lot better there than here. People claim that they need guns to protect them from the guns of others, but if the sale of guns was prohibited all together, well, that would be that. I know that's one of those dreams like ending hunger and having world peace than can't just be realized instantly, but I don't know what else to say - I don't see a need for the right to bear arms.

Homosexuality - I'm gay, what can I say http://www.gotapex.com/ubb/smile.gif I guess what concerns me about all the negativity surrounding us is that a lot of it seems to stem from the believe that we're these horrid sinners that choose this life of evil. Being gay isn't a choice - I'm sorry, it isn't. I can show you that fact in seconds with teen suicide rate statistics, or I could relate the last two years of my life to you and show you that. In middle school, I repressed my feelings and acted as I saw everyone else acting, but this ultimately led to a breakdown in my sophomore year of high school. I was paranoid, I isolated myself, and more than anything in the world, I wanted to be normal. Any time my mind wasn't engaged, I got depressed, and when I got depressed, I cried. I cried before school started, I cried during lunch, I cried when I got home. I was miserable.

If all I had to do is say, "OK, this is silly, I think I'll like girls from now on", then why didn't I?

I don't want other people to go through what I had to go through - I don't want the garbage from the religious right stuffed down anyone's throats. I don't want to be called immoral, I don't want to be called a biological error, and I certainly don't want to hear that I can be cured. I am what I am, I can't change that, and all I want from the world is to be allowed to love as I want.

renots

07-04-2000, 04:52 PM

People claim that they need guns to protect them from the guns of others, but if the sale of guns was prohibited all together, well, that would be that.

Ah, Prohibitionists:rolleyes:...

:0)

[Edited by renots on 12-01-2000 at 01:39 AM]

renots

07-04-2000, 05:14 PM

Originally posted by lisu24:
I'm sickened by the number of children who have been killed by other children whether it's been in schools or on the streets of inner cities.

I blame the Media for its irresponsability and lack of restraint warranted by bottomless profit-mongering.

Luckily, in America at least, the broadband revolution that IS coming will disintegrate the current mindlock amid a sea of diverse voices.

That is unless we are stupid and allow ourselves to be legislated into a corner. Fight all legislation of the net if you want to see it happen. There are already enough laws in the real world controlling people.
Fraud on the net should be fought by organizing local groups everywhere that will help others affected by fraudulent folks operating in their jurisdiction; the net allows this. We can't be heaping more and more responsability on our already overburdened 'justice' systems. Grass-roots everyone!

:0)

p.s. gun control=people control

[Edited by renots on 11-29-2000 at 01:49 AM]

renots

07-04-2000, 05:49 PM

The trouble with this country is that there are too many politicians who believe,
with a conviction based on experience,
that you can fool
all of the people
all of the time.

FRANKLIN PIERCE ADAMS

Timotheus

07-05-2000, 12:10 AM

Thanks for your response Ben, and of course, you predicted the next logical question. I respect your opinion and I understand that partial birth abortions are "rare". Of course when you're dealing with a couple million abortions each year, "rare" may mean 100,000 or so (not that I have the stats to back that up - but I know they're out there).

Let me ask this then:

If, as you have said, you don't know the answer to the question of when it becomes murder, then how can you, in good conscience subjugate that very important answer to the issue of "choice" for the woman? It seems to me that before a person would give their "approval", either through overt measures, or simply through their silence and deferral to the choice of another person, that person would need to answer that crucial question.

just a thought.

I would like to hear any further points from anyone on this issue.

Chief Broom

07-05-2000, 01:45 AM

No hard feelings on my side Timotheus. If I ever do attack your beliefs, I completely expect for you to viciously attack back http://www.gotapex.com/ubb/wink.gif I know *I* would do the same thing! I started this topic off with a simple question and its cool that it has gone from completely random all the way back to the point...funny stuff!!

About Al Gore, the guy really pisses me off!!! He gives a bad name to all liberals, to all environmentalists, and to most Democrats. You know the bastard hired Pete Knight back in the day? Pete Knight is the same bigot who started prop. 22 and who is openly racist (If you want proof I'll search around for his little poem about illegal immigrants and their "chebby trucks" <---Cuz us hispanics can't pronounce chevy....Oh god HAHA "eet sooo funny!"). I would actually like to support Ralph Nader, but one thing scares me about voting for a third party...

We have one of the most conservative supreme courts in a long while. And quite a few of them will be dying/retiring during the next presidential term. I would really really like to see some more liberal or moderate voices on the supreme court, and I'm afraid a Republican would try to put some more super-conservatives on the court...If I don't vote democrat I really feel like im throwing away an important vote. Cuz you know what? The President doesnt matter nearly as much as the Supreme Court in terms of lasting effects. You screw up on the Pres. and the prob is fixed in 4 years. You screw up on a supreme court nomination and you have the same moron on the bench for the next 40...

Timotheus

07-05-2000, 08:30 AM

Chief, I totally agree with you on the importance of Supreme Court justices. As such, you can imagine why I really want Bush to be elected (even though I think he is lacking in some undefinable and some definable ways), so that he can (I hope) appoint some more conservative justices.

I dislike Gore based on most of his standpoints, including but not limited to abortion, gun control, tobacco control (even though I don't smoke, er, well maybe the occasional cigar), education, and the environment. LOL, short list eh?

I will only vote for Bush because he is the lesser of two evils (read: I would rather vote McCain because I think he has better character and backbone - I'd even forgive the remark about the "religious right" and his particiapation (alleged) in the Keating 5)

Racism = NOT GOOD. I can't believe some of the idiotic things politicians say and do. i.e. cheby pickups.

Abortion - this is one issue I have a really hard time just rolling over on. I am not a one issue voter but this is certainly very important to me. Why? Well, at its root, in my way of thinking, the taking of a human life, or even a potential human life (read: not yet "viable" outside the womb), is murder. I understand the argument that it's a womans body and "how could you possibly know what it's like" and the plethora of other pro-choice arguments. However, the fundamental fact remains that the womans choice does not equal the unborn baby's choice. Not trying to sound cliche here, but who is standing up for the rights of all the unborn women (not to mention the unborn men)?

Statistical fact points out that 95% of abortions done in America today are for reasons of birth control, not the health or safety of the mother. It sickens me that even partial-birth abortions cannot be banned in this country. No reasonable person can say that this procedure is moral. You don't need me to describe how this is done to get the point - "partial birth" says it all.

I will concede to "health of the mother" exceptions (I could not see my wife die in labor if it was preventable), and for the sake of argument, I would concede to "rape" and "incest" cases because they are so statistically insignificant. This is a concession in practice, not in principle as I believe babies concieved that way are still humans who deserve rights, and who did not ask to be conceived in these ways.

Can someone answer this question for me?

What is the difference between aborting a baby 1 day before its due date and killing the infant 1 day after its delivery into the world?

I await a well reasoned response.

jstreet

07-05-2000, 11:10 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Timotheus:

Can someone answer this question for me?

What is the difference between aborting a baby 1 day before its due date and killing the infant 1 day after its delivery into the world?

I await a well reasoned response.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In your example, there is little difference. However, abortions can not be performed nearly that late into a pregnancy. According to Planned Parenthood, abortions after 24 weeks are only performed for serious heath reasons - and abortions in the second trimester (14-24 weeks), are rarely performed. I know that you're now of course, asking the question, "Well then Ben, how many weeks does it take to be murder?". I can't answer that - all I can say is what I've said before; that I'm pro-choice and it's up to the mother-to-be to decide that for herself.
-Ben

lisu24

07-05-2000, 01:34 PM

Abortion - usually comes about because teenagers are getting pregnant either because they know about birth control but can't afford it, they don't know enough about birth control because their parents didn't tell them enough, or they know about birth control and just don't care. I just don't think that abortion should be allowed after a certain point, but with all the potential problems with over-population, I'm pro-choice. Why should a child be brought into this world to parents who don't want him/her? I can give a bunch of examples, but they're too depressing for me to type out. Yes, it's not right to kill an innocent baby, but until "society as a whole" decides to better educate the youth or make birth control easier to obtain, or even just accept the fact that their children are having sex, I can't see this happening. What if someone got pregnant who didn't want to be pregnant and was being responsible and used as much birth control that she could possibly use? Do we punish her for the 1% ineffectiveness of the birth control method?

My 2 cents, but I'm not attacking anyone...just saying how I feel.

renots

07-05-2000, 04:36 PM

On birth control,

Why aren't there more options that don't involve petroleum products, chemicals or abstinence?

On Supreme Court nominations,

These guys still need to go through a political process of confirmation, so extreme choices will probably be filtered out.

Besides as the past shows us conservative nominees are not necessarily conservative justices and vice-versa. Nixon appointed some of the most liberal members of the court.

Besides the democrats have the perennial problem of being perceived as 'soft' on crime, leading them to do things that a republican wouldn't, such as roll back the Bill of Rights. If I recall George Bush Sr rolled back the holy war on plants, while 'liberal' Bill Clinton cranked it back up again.

So...

I think I will have to vote for someone other than a democrat this time around if I expect to see any change for the good.

Gore's a Bore

:0)

[This message has been edited by renots (edited 07-05-2000).]

Fuz

07-05-2000, 05:04 PM

I understand how people can be both for and against abortion. My belief is that abortion is wrong. I doubt that with any amount of argument I could sway anyone's opinion so I'm not going to try. I do wish that people would stop being stupid and call it what it is. Either be anti-abortion or pro-abortion, that pro-life/choice thing is a load of crap. Sure, you can argue that you think people have a right to choose, so your stance should be pro-choice. But the more I hear it the more it sounds like a weak cop-out by people who are afraid to stand up for their beliefs.

Thats my $.02 ($8,433.74 canadian)

Fuz

------------------
-So I sez to him, getch yer own monkey.

jstreet

07-05-2000, 11:39 PM

Thanks for the reply, Timotheus - let me try to clarify. I'll never be in a situation in which I'll have a life inside of me that I didn't intend on having, so it's hard for me to conceptualize what I would do in that scenario. I'm well-educated, more or less financially stable (as much as a teen can be), and I have a loving family that would help me with a child if I were in that situation, but even with those things, it would be a very difficult decision for me. That's just my point those - it needs to be a decision. As I will never experience those circumstances, all I can say is that whoever is there deserves a choice; deserves to decide what would be the greater crime: Stifling an innocent life-to-be, or attempting to raise an unwanted child. It all depends on the circumstances. This statement, of course, begs the question, "Well, when does the scale tip one way or the other?". Again, I can't say. However, for example, it seems to me far more cruel to bring someone into this world when you have no money or food for them; when they may die as a young child from disease, or starvation. It seems much worse to allow a thinking, breathing, feeling being to suffer so when all could have been avoided.

I don't want to make the sweeping generalization that all mothers than choose not to have an abortion will have children that starve to death, because that's ludicrous and not what I'm trying to say. What I want to say is that the mother needs to decide, "Am I capable of doing this; am I capable of loving this child, providing for them, and ensuring they get what they need?". Based on the results of that and many other questions, the mother will make a choice - and I would never presume to disallow her that choice.

renots

07-06-2000, 01:53 AM

The right
to be let alone
is indeed
the beginning
of all freedom.

JUSTICE WILLIAM O. DOUGLAS

renots

07-06-2000, 02:11 AM

Abortion ends a life and is a medical procedure. Medical procedures that can potentially save lives should not be legislated against. The morals that dictate whether someone should do that to themselves and their fetus must be left to those individuals affected; morality usually can not be legislated successfully. Remember Alcohol Prohibition (1920–1933 R.I.P.) ?

[This message has been edited by renots (edited 07-07-2000).]

Timotheus

07-06-2000, 07:23 AM

Thanks for your reply Ben. I would like to point out that no one in this forum has yet mentioned adoption. Adoption is a completely viable choice for "unwanted" pregnancies. My sister was unable to have children and therefore they went through the adoption process, which I may add, was nightmarish in it's delays, legal proceedings and frustrations. However, there is now one unwanted yet alive child who is now very wanted, loved, and completely cared for. There are many many more couples and individuals capable and willing to provide loving homes for "unwanted" babies. I feel that adoption is not mentioned because then adamantly pro choice advocates would have to admit to the possibility that abortion is murder. They cannot allow for a hint of that in their position or risk invalidating their entire platform. You also may look at history and see examples of many children who by today's definitions would be considered unwanted but who achieved great things - Beethoven is one example.

Renots - I've heard the cliche about legislating morality but it doesn't hold water. Our entire legal system is based on ethical decisions - what we ought or ought not to do. And, we are punished when we do the ought nots (ie murder, stealing, etc. etc.) If we can't legislate morality, there would be no laws on the books because there would be no right or wrong. All things would be relative and without foundation.

Tim

lisu24

07-06-2000, 08:11 AM

Adoption is a good thing, but from most cases that I've heard, unless you're adopted as a baby to up about 5 years old, you end up in foster homes growing up and feeling unwanted. The sad thing in this world is that there are millions of unwanted children (especially baby girls in China), but legally, it's a nightmare to adopt because of the legal groundwork that needs to be done. Do we really need to prove that we will be good parents? Did our parents have to prove that they would be good parents when they gave birth to us? Also, the adoption bans being placed on gay/lesbian adoptions in various states will also lower the demand for adoptions....that's where a lot of demand for adoption comes from. Couples who cannot produce children naturally.

renots

07-06-2000, 04:01 PM

Originally posted by Timotheus:
Our entire legal system is based on ethical decisions - what we ought or ought not to do.

Our entire legal system is based on who has enough money to throw at lawyers, jury selection specialists, and 'experts' to get their way. Remeber O.J. ?

And, we are punished when we do the ought nots (ie murder, stealing, etc. etc.)

For the most part enforcement of laws against consensual crimes mean there are less resources to direct at the prevention of real, violent crimes; more criminals get away with more violent crimes before they are finally put away. A never ending cycle until America gets off its addiction to prohibition.

Too many laws have led to a general disregard for the Law. The legal system was supposed to be there to protect citizen's rights, but is so backlogged by consensual crime prosecution, that many citizens have to wait two years to get their day in court. The more money you've got, the faster(or slower) you can make the system go. Give me a break.

If we can't legislate morality, there would be no laws on the books because there would be no right or wrong. All things would be relative and without foundation.

Excuse me since when does a law determine whether something is wrong or right? If I remember correctly the law supported chattel slavery for quite a while. Do you think that made it right? Laws are often the last things to change; usually society has progressed way past them by the time they change.

Tim

:0)

[Edited by renots on 11-29-2000 at 01:51 AM]

Timotheus

07-07-2000, 06:28 AM

unaccountable entities? stripping our rights away?

Renots, are you a member of the John Birch society? Just asking because some of your post sound so "conspiratorial".

I think you misread or perhaps I mistated my remark about laws. You say "you can't legislate morality". I am merely saying that our entire universe of laws is roughly based on the Judeo-Christian ethic, unless of course you live in Louisiana and then it's the Napoleonic Code (but that's a bit complicated for this thread). The Judeo-Christian ethic is based on a series of moral judgments - i.e. murder is wrong, stealing is wrong, etc, etc, etc. I am not saying that every law is based on this, however, that is where the foundation lays. At some point in time, there was a movement to codify moral rights and wrongs into laws. That's a fact Renots, and therefore, someone did decide to "legislate morality". No offense here but I was surprised to hear you use such a cliche based on the obvious dedication with which you hold your beliefs and the obvious time you spend reading and studying them.

Tim

renots

07-07-2000, 01:09 PM

Originally posted by Timotheus:
unaccountable entities? stripping our rights away?

To take the example of one consensual crime the federal government likes to prosecute to the full extent: use of cannabis by sick people. In California the federal government has ignored the will of the people of California, who overwhelmingly passed prop 215 and continues to threaten doctors who recommend or prescribe it with loss of their livlihood. Patients who have benefitted from this alternate treatment, are denied it callously if they fall under the gaze of our all beneficient, benign legal system.

Peter McWilliams, the author of much of the material I posted, was the latest victim of this holy war, a war as you pointed out on based on Judeo-Christian Belief.

I find that hard to swallow though since my understanding of what the supposed founder of the Christian Religion, Jesus Christ, was preaching had something to do with Tolerance, Compassion, and Justice, little of which I see truely being followed by certain arms of government.

Besides I thought there was supposed to be a barrier between Church and State in this country, or was that just more conspiratorial nonsense from some radical fringe freaks?

:0)

[Edited by renots on 09-08-2000 at 09:09 PM]

renots

07-07-2000, 01:29 PM

Originally posted by Timotheus:
At some point in time, there was a movement to codify moral rights and wrongs into laws.

And this was a very bad idea. Moral rights and wrongs should be determined by one's own religious or philosophical beliefs, not the law of the land, unless you want to live in a religious fundamentalist state. I don't particularlily, probably part of the reason why I moved from the east coast.

Laws should be there to stop people from seriously hurting each other, not to stop an individual from hurting themselves, whether physically or, ack, morally. When you have too many laws that can be broken with out hurting someone, it tends to weaken people's respect for the real laws that are there to prevent violence; it also makes it harder for the legal system to catch the true 'menaces to society' when they have to arrest and process so many non violent 'criminals' on mandatory minimums, etc.

The point is the legal/prison system is no free lunch, especially for taxpayers, so we have to stop the mentality that it can fix everything by prohibition. Otherwise, 20 years from now, we will have a prison system twice as large as our higher education system
as a legacy for our grandchildren. How wonderful.

:0)

[Edited by renots on 11-29-2000 at 01:52 AM]

renots

08-13-2000, 03:59 AM

Originally posted by renots:
On birth control,

Why aren't there more options that don't involve petroleum products, chemicals or abstinence?

WooHoo!!
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20000811/hl/herbs_pregnancy_1.html

Herbs May Interfere with Ability to Conceive

...

In an article in a recent issue of OBG Management, a journal for obstetricians and gynecologists, Blackwell notes that substances used by both the male and female partner are important. ``It recently has been demonstrated that echinacea, gingko biloba and St. John's wort have a negative effect on sperm production and fertilizing capacity,'' he explained.

But other herbals also cause concern for fertility doctors, Galle explained.
``Ginseng is listed as possibly causing problems. Another one is kava kava. And black cohosh is another good one to avoid'' if patients are trying to get pregnant, according to Galle.

Blackwell said he was alerted to the possible risk of infertility from using some herbal preparations in part by a March article in the journal Fertility and Sterility.

That article reported that, in lab studies, St. John's wort, echinacea and gingko biloba all lessened the ability of sperm to penetrate ova, an absolutely necessary step in fertilization.

``It's a much more common problem than people realize,'' Blackwell said. ``Up until this past year, even infertility specialists weren't aware of this,'' he added.

...

Let the good times roll...

;0}

[Edited by renots on 11-29-2000 at 01:52 AM]

renots

08-15-2000, 07:31 PM

Free Speech Zones (http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20000815/ts/campaign_protests_dc_20.html) are a bunch of DoubleTalk

The whole country is a Free Speech Zone(except my house; I'll give you the boot if you start bugging me too much)

;0)

CuriousGeorge157

08-15-2000, 09:45 PM

Over the years as I have accumulated my knowledge of the government, I noticed some interesing things. America has one of the highest crime and murder rates in the world. But it is also one of the most diverse places that offers the power of free speech, press, and so on. On the flip side, for example a country in the Middle East (I can't think of one on the top of my head) exercises total order in that country. They enforce extreme punishments on criminals(like chopping off hands if caught stealing), but they also have a almost non existent crime rate. But the country would be almost dictatorlike and have scarce diversity. My question is, do you think that there could ever be a way to balance both freedom and order in accord? Instead of sacrifing one for the other, is it possible( in the future) to have both? Let me know what you guys think. I am curious.

renots

08-15-2000, 10:50 PM

Originally posted by CuriousGeorge157:
My question is, do you think that there could ever be a way to balance both freedom and order in accord? Instead of sacrifing one for the other, is it possible( in the future) to have both? Let me know what you guys think. I am curious.

A devolvement of rights from the Federal Government to the states, with a fresh understanding that the Bill of Rights applies to everyone equally regardless of one's religion, gender, economic situation, sexual preference, choice of what plants one may grow(and consume), choice of pet, etc.

No special rights for anyone, just the Golden Rule. And no systems designed to subjugate and keep people down, like federal taxation of income below $100,000. All it takes is for everyone to believe that there can be a better way.

:0)

[Edited by renots on 11-29-2000 at 01:47 AM]

renots

08-15-2000, 11:17 PM

Originally posted by CuriousGeorge157:
America has one of the highest crime and murder rates in the world.

It's also has one of the most widespread and violent media cultures on the planet.
Hopefully this will change as the kiddies have a greater variety of 'programming' available to them.

:0)

[Edited by renots on 11-29-2000 at 01:47 AM]

CuriousGeorge157

08-15-2000, 11:59 PM

Renots.
pretty interesting theory. I wouldn't be surprised if it worked. http://www.gotapex.com/ubb/smile.gif

Timotheus

08-17-2000, 06:35 AM

congrats on reviving a 3 month old thread. I think I'm going to throw away all my St. Johns Wort and Gingko Bilboa. LOL

for20

11-29-2000, 02:06 AM

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2000/11/24/101638.shtml

The Legacy of the Soccer Moms' Guy

Here’s a lovely little quote from a recent USA Today story from a 15-year-old high school girl in Green Bay, Wisconsin:

"The consensus in my high school is that oral sex makes girls popular whereas intercourse would make them outcasts."

Nice, huh? That’s somebody’s daughter saying that. Lynn Ponton is a psychiatrist at the University of California at San Franscisco. She wrote the book "The Sex Lives of Teenagers." Ponton told USA Today what the principal excuse for these teenagers is ... can you guess?

Yup, you got it! "Oral sex isn’t sex."

And where do they get this idea?

(0;

sbp

11-29-2000, 05:23 AM

"Where are all my liberal brothers and sisters?!?!" whimpered out ChiefBroomie. Their in the corner along with the rest of you liberal crybabies. http://www.geocities.com/sbp7777/crybaby2.gif

Its funny how that guy disappeared after the asswhipping I gave him in this thread: http://www.gotapex.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=7692&pagenumber=1

And yeah Bill Clinton blows.

Grimm

11-29-2000, 09:58 AM

Damn! I want to go back to High School now.

BTW Character DOES matter, always has, always will.

for20

11-29-2000, 04:42 PM

Us Freedom~Loving, Gun~Toting Liberals needs 2 show them socialist "liberals" what's Up

Get the word out about Got|Apex Folks!

abbra

11-29-2000, 05:04 PM

Bush sure does have backing by the religious right and Falwell, Robertson and the rest of those screwballs. And people were worried about John F. Kennedy's connections to The Vatican. Hell you all haven't seen anything yet! Wait till those bozo's get GW in office, Bush will be their puppet if Falwell has anything to do with Bush running the country. Those religious dudes will be dancing ol Bush on The puppet strings. That just makes me feel real secure about the stability of the nation. Cripes Bush can't even run his own state let alone the Nation. We are doomed. As far as Canada having free medical The US and Clinton Administration were chatting up the possibility of getting the medical here but the repubs didn't like the idea so they shot it down.
Its too bad because there are a several million children in this country who can use good health and dental care, but their parents can't afford the high prices the conservative doctors and dentist throw out at the parents. Our Children are going without in this country and no one seems to give a shit. They all ( congress and house) want to make like it is a big deal..when they are in session but eventually bills and laws to help children of this country get tossed on the congressional floor. Who suffers? Not those bums that you all put into office that are getting paid big bucks to sit on their asses and do nothing for this country but take advantage of the titles and the freebies they inherited when their people elected them to office. I wonder if I can charge my power lunches and get free postage?

for20

11-29-2000, 05:17 PM

Ur kidding if U think the rich R paying income tax. Anyways rich people only made up about 10% of the Republican Vote; everyone else was voting 2 Get BIG Government the hell out of their lives and back into limits of the Constitution, where it belongs.

There would be alot more money for local health and social net programs if FEDERAL INCOME TAX wasn't sucking away that money to drop bombs on people. And if U think democrats drop less bombs on people, I'm sorry but Ur ASLEEP.

Get this one:Republicans realize that this economy is seriously going 2 tank unless some drastic measures R done 2 keep it going[I.E. tax breaks 4 everyone, not just the rich], while from all outward appearance it appears that the democrats and their supporters in the media would love to see the economy crash so they couls implement a whole "new deal" and bring America under the socialist strait jacket

and stop calling me renots!

for20

11-29-2000, 05:21 PM

Children would be alot better off if the cost of living was lower[i.e. lower income taxes 4 everyone, thus reducing the cost of services 2 everyone, further reducing costs 4 people and on and on...; it tends 2 have a marvelous cascading effect]

for20

11-29-2000, 05:25 PM

Freeing Judges from income tax would go a long way towards restoring Justice and Autonomy 2 the courts, traits which have been sorely lacking under a treasury dept unfluenced judiciary.

Social Justice would go a long towards making it a Better World 4 Children 2 Grow Up in.

for20

11-29-2000, 05:43 PM

As far as subjects like Abortion/A Woman's Right, the proper approach is for woman 2 band together to form a non~peofit association 2 provide travel and medical expenses to disadvantaged woman. Don't ask government 2 take on this duty as its UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

So is forcing any type of standard on a community that is not in line with that community's beliefs.

this is what makes America both Beautiful and Ugly; but u have 2 allow the Freedom 2 be Ugly and 2 have the free will 2 change otherwise it is no Freedom at all.

Do U see why Freedom is so Beautiful and that we should be in no big rush to exchange it for false promises of entitlements or quick solutions

The Bill of Rights is the only entitlement we Truely[and desperately] Need

[Edited by for20 on 11-30-2000 at 07:24 PM]

sbp

11-29-2000, 05:51 PM

Gore sure does have backing by the religious left and Jackson, Sharpton and the rest of those screwballs.

"And people were worried about John F. Kennedy's connections to The Vatican. Hell you all haven't seen anything yet! Wait till those bozo's get GW in office, Bush will be their puppet if Falwell has anything to do with Bush running the country. Those religious dudes will be dancing ol Bush on The puppet strings. That just makes me feel real secure about the stability of the nation. Cripes Bush can't even run his own state let alone the Nation. We are doomed."<---This is nonsensical scaremongering and fearmongering.

People who are religous have just as much right to express their opinions as does anyone else. You don't see Jesse Jackson and Reverend Al Sharpton being quiet do you? Of course not. They flap their big mouths and cause ruckus's whereever they go. So why should people who are on the religous right say absolutely nothing? There's total inconsistency there and you know it. Just because you don't agree with people's points of views doesn't mean those points of view should be silenced.

And the religous left is far more destructive than those on the religious right with the views they espouse.

Yes health care costs a lot but getting government more involved would mean the cost of health care would rise. It would be a disaster. The government can't even do most things right now and people want to turn over more responsilities over to it? Gimme a break!

abbra thousands of Canadians come across the border to pay for operations they can't get in Canada due to socialized medicine. Also please take a look at the bad condition of tenncare is in now before promoting socialized medicine here. Free medical ain't free honey. It co$ts big money!

I totally agree. Its time to cut BIG government down to size and return the people's money to the people. Guess who's going to be crying more about that if it ever happens. It won't be conservatives. http://www.geocities.com/sbp7777/happy.gif

zenbooty

11-29-2000, 06:35 PM

Geez, the religious right do NOT have Bush in their pockets. The Christian Coalition has splintered and weakened incredibly over the last ten years. Bush has got much richer pals than that, I'm afraid. He hardly needs to make more by pandering to contributors (although I'm sure he will to a certain degree). He's no preacher from the bible belt, he's an oil millionaire!

I do wonder how he'll be coping with the long sleepless days he'll be getting for the next four years as president, though. ;)

for20

11-29-2000, 06:58 PM

Originally posted by zenbooty
I do wonder how he'll be coping with the long sleepless days he'll be getting for the next four years as president, though. ;)

more, ahem, sticky green for "back pains" I would assume ;)

abbra

11-30-2000, 07:17 AM

Sbp in my city we have senior's traveling over the border into Canada for their prescription drugs, because its cheaper, and I have a cousin whose husband is from Canada and she has been to Canada for medical treatment for her back problem. She, herself is a doctor in PA and has spent thousands and loads of insurance money here in the states and never got any kind of help that treated her condition until she went to Canada. Other people that I know have done the same because they all got tired of cost of insurance and leftover enormous bills from inadequate medical treatment here in the US.
On the topic of Sharpton and Jesse. I personally think Sharpton has alot of loose screws. Now Jesse's sister lives in my city and I have met him when he has been visiting here and he is a decent chap. He's has good ideas that if put into practice would help many in this country. You had to be there when he was not in front of the cameras and just Jesse. Its sinful that such ideas that can help all are swept under the carpet because of race discrimination.
As for Falwell. That guy is a big jerk. He sent one of his new ministers from his college up this way to start a Jerry extention church and I just happen to attend many of this kids services. If Falwell doesn't mind program these kids after his beliefs and personal opinions I will eat your boxers.
Eventually this young man ended up having a good time with one of the prostitutes off the streets of downtown. He carried on in front of his 23 year old wife and three babies and a big congregation with the congregation warning him of his actions. He told them it was Gods will that he save this girls soul..but they found out he was doing more than saving souls and Falwell had his private plane come up and carry the kid back to the ministry for reprograming.
Randall Terry, Mr Operation Rescue, happens to be a acquaintence and he is nuttier than a fruitcake. He is a wife beater, a liar, a cheater, had his wife leave him recently because of affairs he was having, and a bigot.
When they had him in jail for protesting abortions they should have thrown away the key so he wouldn't get out and get the masses in a frenzy over the abortion issue.
I equate Randy to a celebrity he always wanted to be. When he started out in my area with his OR, he was a rock star, or so he thought! It must have been the drugs that fried his brains and Falwell swooped right in to save old Randy..and gave Randy the use of his, Falwells personal jet to travel from city to city . No one knew that it was Falwell that was backing Randy except those who lived near him and knew him. Randy was even banned from his church because of his adulturous ways. And he was backed by Falwell and the rest of the fine upstanding Christian Conservatives that bribe candidates with big money and high expectations.
Money buys people, and if Gore gets into office now doubt he will be bought just like GW.
I think the saddest thing about politics is that we as voters put these jokers into office after we are sucked in by their lies and promises. Not all politicians start out that way and some enter the ring full of good intentions, wanting to help people, until greed bites them in the ass.
I wonder if Lincoln was ever bitten in the ass? :)
If you think about it we really don't pick the man/woman who will be our country's leader. They are picked by the political parties and those parties say here is your choice that we picked for you.. now go vote for him. Whomever gets the most votes wins.
Hillary-2006 be kind s...