To the Anonymous User: If it is genetic, is it a choice? Did you have a choice when you were born on hair color, foot size? In the Old Testament leprosy was considered a result of sin. But science has shown leprosy to be a disease, not a punishment from God. Before we call being a lefty a sin, shouldn't we at least take the time to find out for certain that it is?
little_whip: What an amendment does is hold all states to the same law. So, "A constitutional amendment would prevent any state from being forced to recognize a homosexual marriage performed in another state, correct?" could be "A constitutional amendment would prevent any state from recognizing such a marriage of lefties." If there is no amendment, states choose, if there is an amendment there is no choice. One other thing, judic
Karma Girl: The fact that you can write with your right hand doesn't alter your genetics, it simply is an attempt to compensate. This might occur if you lose your hand, for example. But otherwise, why should the left-hander have to compensate? Shouldn't it be their choice? BTW: I absoulutely agree with your second paragraph. The states are better equipped to deal with their people on their terms. Bravo!
little_whip and others: I am not stating I know left handedness to be genetic. But can't we wait on an amendment that would essentially say that we can discriminate against someone until we are sure we know? There are many possibilities but the only one that should make lefthandedness wrong is if it is purely a choice. Otherwise, legislation by the states to control civil order (in public) should be all that is required. All lefthanders sa
The current political hysteria over the menace of Lefty marriages in the U.S. and the threat it poses to our Righty society has now reached the point where many church and social leaders want to pass a Constitutional Amendment banning Lefties from marrying. The language of the amendment: "We hereby define marriage as a union between two right handed people." fits scr
Draginol: Yes, I am American. Born, raised, and proud to be. The Secretary of State is often seen as the chief spokesman of foreign policy for the United States Government. He is handpicked by the President and often shares daily briefings, certainly he is one of the few who help formulate foreign policy. The statements that the Secretary of State makes represents the President. You may choose to disagree, which would say to me that Co
Draginol: This is a direct quote from Powell's testimony on February 5, 2003 to the Security Council. I think it is pretty straightforward and obvious what the argument and basis for U.S. action was shortly thereafter. Do you wish the references Powell has made since the war saying that the information was "flawed" or can we agree to that? BTW: Whether you want to believe it or not, I did support the war, hoped it would end in a quick Ameri
Colin Powell clearly stated that our actions were based on the "evidence" presented before the U.N. Why do Americans still favor us having gone in there? Because the basis for doing so (to remove what everyone on both sides of the political spectrum) was removing Saddam. No one is defending Saddam (except for his corp of 50 international lawyers). Americans at this juncture are still undecided about whether we were justified on any other basis. <B
Draginol: If Mr. Bush made statements linking WMD's to both a "possible future threat" and to possible terrorist actions (as he has also done with North Korea) as a pretense to war (which I would agree was done) then the voter must consider whether they believe the evidence presented by Colin Powell was factual and correct, because that is the basis upon which we said we acted. Since Powell has since stated the intelligence was not
shadesofgrey: This is just another example of how divisive society is becoming. We can't make an argument about what we believe and rely upon the reader to either accept or question it. No....we must make a statement by pointing out how the "other side" is so hypocritical and corrupt. Sad to think gay people think that outing someone will make straight people think twice about passing a law against gay marriage. Indeed, it will probably ma
Draginol: I supported the war, based on Colin Powell's statements to the U.N. Security Council but I do believe Mr. Bush was consistent in saying how much of a threat the WMD's presented to the U.S., the Middle East and Europe. Second, Mr. Bush has consistently maintained a connection with Al Qaeda and terrorism groups that threaten the U.S. Are you now saying that this is incorrect?
The debate over how to deal with terorism and more specifically "terrorist entities" (organizations like Al Qaeda, countries like the old Afghanistan and Iraq) centers around 2 central themes. The first approach is that the U.S. and the coalition of the "dragged along" (those who will not oppose us) should decide which places need to have their people subjegated or d
Jilluser: Well, what I was trying to say is that we can't know what Kerry will do, granted, but we know his background and know that he served in battle so has seen what soldiers face. I think too many people are associating Kerry with Clinton in terms of leadership. I don't think there is a good basis for that. They should be considered very different men in terms of who they are who have similar ideas in terms of democratic party philosop
Madine: I am not sure how the invasion of Iraq applies to what he would do if Kerry became President. Jilluser: I doubt he would close or change what we are doing in terms of "terrorism suspects" already caught. I mean, the guy fought in a war. I think he saw Viet Namese prisoners arrested and held. I think he has more backbone than simply to say, "oh sorry, we made a mistake." I think some people may be confusing Kerry (
ShadowWar: Sure, I understand your position. I don't live in a world of peace or brotherhood. Man refuses to accept that living together in peace and mutual respect is the natural order. Instead, the natural order is "you hit us, we hit you until someone can't hit back anymore." The problem is that the scenario you suggest of someone hitting us is brought about by the approach you advocate. It is too late to make a preemptive strike. As
ShadowWar: The question I would ask is: Do you think our government and military leadership has what it takes to make the situation in Iraq work (i.e. a stable government elected by the people)?
Jilluser: I am an undecided voter, but I wonder what you think the Kerry people would do different in terms of this issue than what is being done now? I almost sounds like you are saying the current administration is "preventing" terrorist attacks. I'm not sure (just saw Tom Ridge talk about possible attacks before the election) and it seems to me like what I heard was the old "well, don't say I didn't tell you" stuff. Or am I missing somet
CS: Nice list. I have read much of the same, would add Terry Pratchett (Discworld series) and John Kennedy O'Toole (The Confederacy of Dunces) as others I really enjoyed.
CS: This was an actual conversation I overheard in 1980 (just so you know that your situation is not new and never resolved): Enginerr 1: We have to get together and solve this problem. It just won't wait any longer and we've put off discussing it twice. Enginerr 2: You're right, you're right. I have a meeting this afternoon, but I will be done by 3. Enginerr 1: 3, oh, no, that won't work (looking in his dayplanner). I have
ShadowWar: Isn't this old news? The free world (including Europe and Canada) have enemies and those enemies are trying to find a way to end our domination of the globe in terms of culture and resources. Sooner or later (hopefully later) someone from one of those will have so little to lose that they will try to "take us out." If your answer is: We must do more of what we are doing now, isn't that the impetus for the attack in the first pla
Bloggers note: There doesn't seem to be an "schools" category so I choose Home and Family because it seemed closest. Sorry for any inconvenence. The American public school system sprawls out from sea to sea with a design to educate our future citizens in the ways of our society as well as give them skills needed to be self-sufficient in the process.
Gideon and CS: I agree with both of your sentiments to a degree. I think the sensationalism we see is much more pointed to the "small" as in "small minded" and "small consequences." Many journalists knew, for example, in the 1980's of the Iran-Contra connection with Oliver North and others and looked the other way....too tough, too likely to be personally a problem for them. Then when Clinton was in office, Drudge had to expose the Lewinsky
Gideon: I wasn't trying to say that journalism should, by nature, be looking for answers hidden under teacups. What I was saying was that when the media assumes that the government is acting in the best interest of the public, journalism becomes nothing more than another outlet for the government. Reporting the news is different than investigating the news. Yet, how would we ever know of any abuses simply by reporting?
Madine: The anecdotal evidence is yourself being recruited, while not being poor and living in a wealthy place. That certainly is not contrary to what the film says. Was I against inspections? No, I was in favor of inspections AND military action based on Colin Powell's presentation at the U.N. Believe it or not, he was the one person who I believed would never present evidence he did not believe in 100%. Of course, now t
Smartaz: Thanks for clarifying. However, as a counterpoint, I believe it was George Bernard Shaw who said "If you are young and not liberal, you have no heart. If you are old and not conservative, you have no brain." I believe he was trying to say we cannot be something we are not (biased) by both nature and upbringing, but we can use the bias to counter those things that we should question, both in ourselves and others. Journalists are on
JoeUser Forums