political debate

[drizzt]

Lets have a respectable political debate. i dont care what its about. it can be global or international. lets lay down a few rules for it though so it stays inteligent.


1 NO RELIGION!!!!!!!!!!!! unless religion needs to be mentioned in passing lets leave it out period. it always get nasty when that becomes a factor
2. no "your dumb, because im right" crap. it would be awsome to have a semi intelectual debate on local and international politics instead of an inuslting war.

can we at least try to make this work? if we can keep it civil and not a huge insult war it might even be fun :)

[Fonsz]

Yes let's give it a try. you start because it's your initiative.

Lets have a respectable political debate. i dont care what its about. it can be global or international. lets lay down a few rules for it though so it stays inteligent.


1 NO RELIGION!!!!!!!!!!!! unless religion needs to be mentioned in passing lets leave it out period. it always get nasty when that becomes a factor
2. no "your dumb, because im right" crap. it would be awsome to have a semi intelectual debate on local and international politics instead of an inuslting war.

can we at least try to make this work? if we can keep it civil and not a huge insult war it might even be fun :)

[drizzt]

hmmmm what to talk about.

well im going to start with an american internal affairs debate. if someone would like to change the issue please post and tell us. we'll try to take off on a new tac or maybe two tacs.

WHat are you opinion on the right to bare(sp?) arms. our constitution point blank guarantees the citizenry "the right to keep and bare arms for the purposes of a well regulated militia" the argument is militias are no longer needed. I challenge that its irrelevant if needed, its a right guaranteed by the US constitution. is it our governments and the politburo.....uh i mean the supreme court's right to change the rights were guaranteed.


Hmmmmm interesting fact. They just elected a democratic president in Iraq. Fox news just flashed that by.

[kitty]

All i can say about that second part of your message is... HAHA... I was funny, to me anyway. I am new to this forum and hope we can talk bout anything together... kendo japan- POLATICS... Later

[kitty]

No reply, eh? gotta go anyway, later mate:devious:

[drizzt]

wich part was funny me refering to the us supreme cour as the politburo or the Iraq part ?

i would very much like this to be a good discussion of political issues to curb some of the random mud throwing going on :)

[h2o]

Uhm, I am not from the US but I hope you won't shoot me for posting anyway (I mean, you do have guns ;)).

I really don't understand why anyone would feel more secure with a gun. I mean, you have the right to bear arms, ok. But so has the villain, right?

I am happy living in a country where firearms are only to be carried in public by the policeforce and the military. Can't even recall to have seen a handgun except on a policeofficer.


And just because you have the right to do something doesn't mean that you have to do it, or that it isn't wrong.

[Optomitrist]

I really dont care if they ban guns. There are people who carry guns in the their trucks around here (truck people). As long as they dont ban swords it wont bother me. Our constitution needs to be updated in several places.

[Matt Molloy]

WHat are you opinion on the right to bare(sp?) arms.

No one shall take away my right to wear a short sleeved shirt! :D

I never realised that the USA was so hot on matters of sartorial elegance.

Cheers,

Matt.

[Berugijin]

hmmmm what to talk about.

well im going to start with an american internal affairs debate. if someone would like to change the issue please post and tell us. we'll try to take off on a new tac or maybe two tacs.

WHat are you opinion on the right to bare(sp?) arms. our constitution point blank guarantees the citizenry "the right to keep and bare arms for the purposes of a well regulated militia" the argument is militias are no longer needed. I challenge that its irrelevant if needed, its a right guaranteed by the US constitution. is it our governments and the politburo.....uh i mean the supreme court's right to change the rights were guaranteed.


Hmmmmm interesting fact. They just elected a democratic president in Iraq. Fox news just flashed that by.

Well, I used to be against the right to bear arms because it led to a lot of bloody situations that might have been solved without violence. Now, however, I am for it. I believe your 'founding fathers' specifically added the right to bear arms so that the American people could stand up against their goverment. I think this is very relevant now in the USA today... But it should be strongly regulated, licensed, etc... If a minor can get his hands on your gun, you should do heavy time imho...

[Optomitrist]

I dont think the government would be taking away our arms so we would not overthrow the gov. They would do it so that so many people who diefrom guns would die of other causes. (head in dishwasher, garagedoor accident, automobiles vs. large dropoffs ect.)


Have any of you heard Chris Rock talk about gun control. He claims that the gov. should not limit guns but raise the price of bullets so that no one could afford them. SO if anyone actually did get shot everyone could say, "man they must have really wanted to kill that dude." because all of the bullets would be thouseands of dollars.

[Neil Gendzwill]

Thought you wanted an intelligent political discussion. A gun control debate is a one-way ticket to a flame war. Might as well have started an abortion or euthanasia thread...

[Optomitrist]

Fine then what do you think about the gas prices, the evil industry and the means to an end.


Hybrid cars cost more and take about 10 years to actually start saving money, booo.

Hydrogen cars, exist and can go up to 300kph (thanks to BMW) so we could be using those soon.

[Darth Neighbour]

if gas prices were the same in us as in germany, then and only then you could talk about "high" prices.
but as long as your selfelected mother****ing texas-wanker won´t give a shit about kyoto-treaty and keeps invading oil countries, you can puff our fossile ressources into the air for a penny.
if you had to pay all those taxes for environmental reasons and other foul excuses by the gas-companies, the us would have more bicycles than china.

[Utotin]

if gas prices were the same in us as in germany, then and only then you could talk about "high" prices.
but as long as your selfelected mother****ing texas-wanker won´t give a shit about kyoto-treaty and keeps invading oil countries, you can puff our fossile ressources into the air for a penny.
if you had to pay all those taxes for environmental reasons and other foul excuses by the gas-companies, the us would have more bicycles than china.

Kyoto treaty- who cares.

What do you mean "keeps invading oil countries"? That implies that we have done it several times. Who aside from Iraq have we invaded? Funny, if we invaded iraq for oil, how come gas prices are still going up?

[Utotin]

Lets talk about the minuteman project in arizona. Now thats some good patriotic americans!

[Kaoru]

if gas prices were the same in us as in germany, then and only then you could talk about "high" prices.
but as long as your selfelected mother****ing texas-wanker won´t give a shit about kyoto-treaty and keeps invading oil countries, you can puff our fossile ressources into the air for a penny.
if you had to pay all those taxes for environmental reasons and other foul excuses by the gas-companies, the us would have more bicycles than china.

Hey, no name-calling, remember? Read the first post.

He wasn't self-elected either. Trust me, we'd know about it if someone elected themselves. It's impossible for that to happen, since we all vote for our leaders here. We voted for him, so he is the President. People have to learn to deal with whom they voted for or did not vote for. No US president is going to be perfect and just what everyone wants.

Anyway, let's not start a fight over that.

If you wish to discuss gas prices, etc, please do so without insulting anyone-and I mean literally anyone, including leaders of countries. Drizzt-san wants this thread to remain civil. Please respect him. Thanks. :)

Now, back to the topic.

High gas prices are considered high or low to the individual living in that country. Each country's cost of living is different and can't really be compared. But, if you use the rate of exchange for your own country's currency and convert, then it will seem that some countries have higher or lower gas prices than others.

Well, that's how I see it. Whether I am correct or not? I dunno. It was a thought I just had, and seems to make sense when you think about it.

Kaoru

[Kaoru]

Lets talk about the minuteman project in arizona. Now thats some good patriotic americans!

The what? Any links to see more about that? I never knew about that until just now. Is is a re-enactement group?

Kaoru

[Fonsz]

High gas prices are considered high or low to the individual living in that country. Each country's cost of living is different and can't really be compared. But, if you use the rate of exchange for your own country's currency and convert, then it will seem that some countries have higher or lower gas prices than others.

Kaoru

The price of gasoline is dirt cheap in the US compared to the prices here in Europe. Also cars are more expensive than in the US. Owning a car is also cheaper compared to Europe. Thus you get big gas guzzling cars for everybody. The recent boom of SUV's is proof of this. And why oh why would anyone like to own a Hummer. The thing is as big as a truck and consumes fuel like a battle tank. I suppose that when prices in the US are the same as in Europe the traffic in the US would not be dominated by these mastodonts on wheels. (With or without gun racks)
I also agree with Mr. Molloy we should all be able to wear short sleeves even in the coldest winter which some British with alcohol in their veins alsways seem to do.:wink:

[Utotin]

The what? Any links to see more about that? I never knew about that until just now. Is is a re-enactement group?

Kaoru

http://news.search.yahoo.com/news/search?p=minuteman+project&toggle=1&ei=UTF-8&fr=FP-tab-web-t

Here is a link. It is a citizen group which is spending a month patroling a section of the Mexico/Arizona border & reporting illegal immigrants to US Border Patrol.

This particicular section of the border is basically a revolving door for illegal immigrants & drug trafficking (sp?) that the US government has essentially given up on.

The minuteman project is trying to bring attention to this problem and the government has already promised to send 500 agents to the Arizona/Mexico border in the coming months.

[Optomitrist]

at the same time europeans have smaller cars than the tanks you can find in america. Every year automobile companies push larger and larger cars on us. Toyota for example doesn't sell the same kind of cars here as they do in japan.


I have been to Paris, those cars are small. You dont find them in USA.

by darth neighbor :
if you had to pay all those taxes for environmental reasons and other foul excuses by the gas-companies, the us would have more bicycles than china.
I can bike several hundred miles home from college. But if we did end up using bikes how much you want to bet those to would be decked out and rediculously furnished.

[Darth Neighbour]

@ koaru
you´re absolutely right, bush won´t change his politics by insulting him
you gotta know, i´m politically pretty active and i see him every day in the news! just can´t stand him.

@utotin
i sometimes lack the right vocabulary, since my last english lesson over a decade ago.
i meant those countries around the persian gulf with rich oilressources, such as saudi arabia, kuwait, irak, etc
from my point of view the war in afghanistan and the present gulf war were invasions. "rescuing kuwait from saddam" was ok in the first place, but turned out to be just a "oil and contracts for uncle sam", hooray.
in the 1st gulf-war us military has already had the chance to take out saddam, but no, he was allowed to keep power.
what will happen next, if iran will continue their nuclear programm, will uncle sam come and help again? or pakistan?
troops will not always bring democracy.

so what i wanted to say was, that it seems to me, bush just wants to secure us-influence in the gulf region and also oil-ressources, rather than having a plan to bring real democracy to these states as he said.
why the gasprice is still going up, is a matter of the companies. maximize profits and downsize everything else. i too see the price per barrel fall every day but not with gas and i also wonder.
a good start would be a thinkover in the us automobile industries to dramatically increase the gasmileage (is that the right word?)
in europe noone with an average income would buy a car wich needs more than 6 to 8 liters per 100 kilometers (no idea how many gallons that would be)

[Utotin]

@ koaru
why the gasprice is still going up, is a matter of the companies. maximize profits and downsize everything else. i too see the price per barrel fall every day but not with gas and i also wonder.


What? The price of oil per barrell is going UP UP UP!!!!!

From the April 4 2005 Financial Times:
Crude oil prices surge past $58
By Peter Garnham
Published: April 4 2005 08:16 | Last updated: April 4 2005 20:30

Oil prices hit all-time nominal highs on Monday, despite attempts by the Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries to stem the rally.

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/0648ff3a-a4d9-11d9-8616-00000e2511c8.html

[samurai999]

Hmm.. as for why Bush Sr. didn't want to take out Saddam is that they were predicting that there would be more casualties. In addition, I thought that the US (at the time) didn't have a solid plan as to what to do after that went down. So Bush Sr. avoided invading baghdad.

As for resources, France needs them, Japan needs them, Germany needs them, Britian needs then, Europe needs them and so do the US. In addition, everybody thinks cars when they say oil. Its not just cars. Its heating oil, lubricants (not just for cars) machine oil (gas generators, machine tools, etc) and other things that we don't really think about on the top of our heads (rubber?). I'm not saying anybody is wrong or right, its just that I think no country is above the other.

Well if it is not the US or the other countries listed, what about "developing countries"? 2nd world countries are the worst in terms of oil consumtion traditionally. They usually don't have strict regulations, and they have growing populations. This is a double negative in terms of environmental impact.

I think one example is China. They have the worlds largest population with questionable environmental controls and they are getting cars!?? They are predicted to be the next big (biggest) market for car companies. I saw satellite images of the pollution coming out of China a couple of years back and it was unbelieveable.

Tim

[samurai999]

at the same time europeans have smaller cars than the tanks you can find in america. Every year automobile companies push larger and larger cars on us. Toyota for example doesn't sell the same kind of cars here as they do in japan.


I have been to Paris, those cars are small. You dont find them in USA.


I can bike several hundred miles home from college. But if we did end up using bikes how much you want to bet those to would be decked out and rediculously furnished.

Well in this respect, i am NOT an SUV fan. They took out all of my favorite sports cars (300ZX, SUPRA, Mitsubishi 3000GT VR4, Gallant VR-4, RX-7 etc) for big van/trucks which only go to the mall. I'm glad that they brought the sports car/sport compact car back. I'm a big Impreza Sti fan myself.

Well, we also have 16 wheelers here. We need to haul a lot of stuff long distances so we aren't going to be doing this in small UPS delivery trucks. As for new concepts, the mechanical engineers at my old college have come up with these concepts for a competition. They started with a hybrid car when i was still an undergrad and converted a Chevy Suburban the year after i graduated.

http://www.team-fate.net/

Tim


Tim

[Utotin]

I think one example is China. They have the worlds largest population with questionable environmental controls and they are getting cars!?? They are predicted to be the next big (biggest) market for car companies. I saw satellite images of the pollution coming out of China a couple of years back and it was unbelieveable.

Tim

Gulf officials: China, India boom means oil prices will stay high


SPECIAL TO WORLD TRIBUNE.COM</FONT>Friday, March 25, 2005


ABU DHABI — Kuwait, bolstered by high oil prices, plans to post a record budget surplus.

The Kuwaiti Finance Ministry said total revenues in the first 11 months of the Kuwaiti year reached $27.1 billion. Kuwait had planned for an $11.25 billion for the entire year, Middle East Newsline reported. The Kuwaiti year runs from April 1 to March 31. Meanwhile, Gulf officials said the demand for oil would continue over the next few years amid accelerated development by China and India. They said the price of oil would probably hover around the $50 market for most of 2005.

[Optomitrist]

utotin is very very correct, the majority of oil and steel goes to china.


Also, the number of cars in iraq has at least doubled or tripled (i forget which one ha) I do know that the reason they are not pumping a lot of oil is because their refieries are in such bad condition that it will take billions to speed them up. I read they have a potential of tripling their oil barrel output with the funding of several billion dollars.

[ChaShu]

In response to the gun issue:

The right to bear arms was included mainly because in the times of the minutemen and militias in the (at the time) "American Colonies", THEY had to provide their own weapons and ammo, so without the right to bear arms, thses erstwhile soldiers would be breaking the law during times of peace. That said, maybe it is an outdated right, but in countries where guns are MORE commonplace due to the prevalence of militarily trained personnel, chances are, common murders (not insugent activities) occur through other methods, i.e. machete, garrotte, stabbing, beatings, etc...

In response to the gas issue:

We in Canada have higher prices than in the US due to taxation (although not as high as in Europe), so that's probably why MB has just introduced the Smart Car here. Pretty cool, but wholly impractical vs. a semi...

New question:

I'm right of centre on many issues, so this is a question out to the conservatives out there. What do you think of the rising prevalence of "liberofacism/wealthy liberal guilt/lifestyle liberals" in North America. I'm talking about hose people who ask you to be accepting and tolerant of ALL their viewpoints, yet are wholly intolerant when you do not believe in their ways. Is it some sort of 80's/90's economic boom backlash where ex-hippies have been guilted into believing they have to overcompensating for "selling out"? Here in Canada, Liberals (left of centre party) are tending towards the dictatorial about many things such as social programs, issues of morality, fiscal policy, size of government, etc. where they will attempt to push through reforms and legislation without debate wherever possible. I found the same tone during the US elections with "urbanites" (read: Hollywood, and the like) when they spoke about those who leaned more towards the right. Discuss?

[ChaShu]

Actually, another question. Should you be (or have had for a prolonged period) paying taxes to have the right to vote? The premise here is, as you are a partner in contributing to government, you have a greater right to vote.

[Utotin]

Hey, I consider a lack of response to be a forfeiture so I declare myself the winner of this polital debate by default.


YAY! I WIN, I WIN, I WIN!!!!!

[h2o]

Should you be (or have had for a prolonged period) paying taxes to have the right to vote?
No. I'm not sure how things look where you live, but here not everyone can expect to get a job, even if they do have a nice education, so it would not be very fair, would it?

[Fonsz]

Actually, another question. Should you be (or have had for a prolonged period) paying taxes to have the right to vote? The premise here is, as you are a partner in contributing to government, you have a greater right to vote.
In the olden days only people who owned land and other real estate were allowed to vote. But that was in the bad old days when "Bosses" ruled the world and your life as you knew it. After hard long struggles from trade unions and the like we all have a fairly good life, at least here in Europe. The fact that you finished some sort of education destines your station in life, I think this is fair. If we should abide the rule as stated in the above quote I think it is the start of a descent into those olden days which were only good if you were a "Boss". Since I'm not, and the majority of people as well, I don't think this is a good idea. Anyone can hit a bump in life and be unemployed for some time. If you lose your job and you would also lose your right to vote, then surely we are reverting to those olden days. The society we live in is not all about work and usefulness. I mean mothers at home take care of the children and the household so they will also be exempt of the elections? I think that half of the population (women) will also rise against this unfair statement.
Let's forget what you said and say no more about these very conservative viewpoints.

[Fonsz]

The what? Any links to see more about that? I never knew about that until just now. Is is a re-enactement group?

Kaoru
Here's a link that explains the problems the US is having at their Southern Border. And with these minute men.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=128&e=1&u=/ucwb/20050408/cm_ucwb/canwestopillegals

[ChaShu]

Let's forget what you said and say no more about these very conservative viewpoints.

Actually, my questions stemmed from two studies that came out of Canada regarding voting:

Lower the voting age to 16 and allow non-citizens the right to vote.
Raise the voting age to 25, limited to male landowners, who can vote once in their area of residence and once in their area of business.
Also, I don't believe in censoring viewpoints as that is the essence of a free and open debate, whatever the leaning, left or right. I hope you can understand my m otivation for asking the question. Truce? :redface:

[Fonsz]

Actually, my questions stemmed from two studies that came out of Canada regarding voting:

Lower the voting age to 16 and allow non-citizens the right to vote.
Raise the voting age to 25, limited to male landowners, who can vote once in their area of residence and once in their area of business.
Also, I don't believe in censoring viewpoints as that is the essence of a free and open debate, whatever the leaning, left or right. I hope you can understand my m otivation for asking the question. Truce? :redface:
Of course there is a truce, since everything here is to be taken at face value or for the lack of a face at what it says. I experienced it as a return to the dark ages.
I don't know what came out of the studies mentioned above but I would support the first one. When you vote you choose what kind of society you're going to live in. And 16 year olds and non-citizens also suffer or benefit from the outcome of an election.
Having said that if I was filthy rich or plain rich I think I would opt for the second one. Because I suppose the moment you get rich you like to stay that way.
On the other hand if had money to burn I would have build a magnificent Dojo like the Butokuden in Kyoto with overnight accomodations and everyone here would be cordialy invited to come over for practice and cultural exchange. Since I don't have any money to burn it will be wishful thinking.

[ChaShu]

On the other hand if had money to burn I would have build a magnificent Dojo like the Butokuden in Kyoto with overnight accomodations and everyone here would be cordialy invited to come over for practice and cultural exchange. Since I don't have any money to burn it will be wishful thinking.

Actually the first thing I would do if I were to win the lottery, that and buy myself some XRBSO bogu. :D Maybe take some time off and go to Japan to train for a few years and probably buy a place in Barcelona or along the coast near Benidorm. Don't know if there's kendo there though...

[ISSAC RU]

21st Century is the Century of China..

[Light Samurai]

21st Century is the Century of China..
And it was before the 21st, No?

[Akai Bushi]

I can't imagin anyone would let a 16 year old vote. They don't even know what life is yet. Parents aren't supposed to argue with their child about what they're making that child do. Children don't have a say. 16 years olds are still children so why should they have a say when the government tells them what they should do? I know 18 years-olds don't know what life is either, but considering the government can send them to battle at anytime 18 years olds and up need a say. And in the case of letting non-citizens vote, why? What is the point of being a citizen. What does it mean to be a citizen. Why should we let someone in another country decide who will be our senator, president, etc... And I mean would you let just any non-citizen vote even illegal aliens? Would you have to have some kind of residence in that country or could a non-citizen do an absenty ballot? I think voting is fine the way it is in the US at least; 18 and up US citizen. Thats a pretty big spectrum and probably even if we let 16 year olds vote they still wouldn't. 18-25 has the smallest turn out. If one doesn't vote one is happy with the way things are.

[Optomitrist]

I can't imagin anyone would let a 16 year old vote. They don't even know what life is yet. Parents aren't supposed to argue with their child about what they're making that child do. Children don't have a say. 16 years olds are still children so why should they have a say when the government tells them what they should do? I know 18 years-olds don't know what life is either, but considering the government can send them to battle at anytime 18 years olds and up need a say. And in the case of letting non-citizens vote, why? What is the point of being a citizen. What does it mean to be a citizen. Why should we let someone in another country decide who will be our senator, president, etc... And I mean would you let just any non-citizen vote even illegal aliens? Would you have to have some kind of residence in that country or could a non-citizen do an absenty ballot? I think voting is fine the way it is in the US at least; 18 and up US citizen. Thats a pretty big spectrum and probably even if we let 16 year olds vote they still wouldn't. 18-25 has the smallest turn out. If one doesn't vote one is happy with the way things are.

I agree, little kids shouldn't be allowed to vote. But to tell you the truth, if you let anyone vote, 4 year olds or what ever, the majority of them wont vote. My age group doesn't vote much either. WHen I turned 18 I started voting, me and about 2% of the rest of us. Little kids what no idea... but they wont vote trust me.

[ChaShu]

I have 2 issues with letting 16 year olds vote:

If a 16 year old is given the right to vote, then they should also be given certain responsibilities, such as standing trial as adults, the POSSIBILITY of military service, jury duty, all things that 18 year olds are already responsible for.
This places a great burden of responsibility on teachers to maintain objectivity within the classroom, where I believe 16 year olds can be very suceptible to political indoctrination.
As to rights and responsibilities, if we can consider an 18 year old of the age where they are already "adult" enought to carry arms in warfare and stand trial as adults, why are they not of the age to be considered responsible enough to consume alcohol? We in North America have set this age limit on alcohol which promts irresponisble drinking habits in those considered "underage" because their regulation is outside the law. Discuss?

[El Gringo]

I definilty agree on the contradictions within age limits we have set on us. I cant talk for the US as my knowledge of your laws is limited. But in Britain at 16, you can get married, smoke, have sex, and drive legally, where as you have to wait til your 18 to drink alchohol (just as bad as smoking in my opinion), vote and watch 18 rated films.

This all seems a little mixed up to me, especially when you consider that getting married is a much bigger decsision than going out for a drink, yet our laws imply that you have enough responsibility at 16 to get married but not enough to drink responsibly.

[Lazken]

to continue on the drinking matter:
in the US, you can drive when you're 16, and drink when you're 21 right?

so youve been driving a few years, and then you start drinking.

where I live, you can drink at 16, and drive a car at 18. so by the time we get to drive, we already know how to drink responsibly. we know our own limits.

catch my drift?

[Akai Bushi]

That is one thing I have a problem with in the United States. I think 16 is too young to start driving. A car is a weapon. Would you give an irresponsible child a firearm. If I was making the law.(Probably thank god I'm not, some of you are saying.) I would make it ok to consume beer and wine at 16, under adult supervison. At eighteen one can drive, buy beer and wine. At 20 one can buy and consume hard stuff.

Any thoughts are welcome.

[drizzt]

ok i just got out of the hospital. Im sorry i havent interjected at all. i will sit down and read all this stuff later on. it does look pretty nice and like a good debate with what ive read :).

anyway ill be back on later after i get my antibiotics(im having to take IV antibiotics)

[Optomitrist]

That is one thing I have a problem with in the United States. I think 16 is too young to start driving. A car is a weapon. Would you give an irresponsible child a firearm. If I was making the law.(Probably thank god I'm not, some of you are saying.) I would make it ok to consume beer and wine at 16, under adult supervison. At eighteen one can drive, buy beer and wine. At 20 one can buy and consume hard stuff.

Any thoughts are welcome.

The percentage of automobile accidents caused by the young adult bracket is equal to the percentage of accidents caused by the elderly. You put caps on the the teens for not being old enough you would have to put a cap on the 70-up bracket as well.

[Neil Gendzwill]

I don't understand the difference between allowing beer/wine and hard liquor - it's all alcohol, it all has the same effect. Except the hangovers are worse with beer and wine.

As far as driving - driving age is a huge deal here in the prairies where many farmers depend on their teenage kids to drive. I'd say most farm kids have driven a truck by the time they're 12, if not younger. I think in Alberta there was a push to lower the driving age to 14, not sure if it succeeded.

Anyways people in their early 20s and under are still kids (although nothing offends an 18 year old more than being referred to as a kid) but you have to draw a line somewhere. I like the idea of the voting/drinking/drafting age being tied together.

[bullet08]

gun control: ability to hit the target with first shot.

iraq: it's international politic.. self interest.. self interest.. if france/germany had enough balls to do it they would have done it too. by the way.. france never asked 'may i' when they went into ivory coast.. once again self interest.

bush: hey, we vote him into office. he's our president. if EU and asian countries don't like him, too freaking bad. you vote your president, as we do. don't like it? wait next 4 yrs and hope for the best.

gas price: guess who has the oil, and guess who sets the oil price? it's supply and demand.

peace loving EU: guess why france and germany didn't want to go into iraq? because they were peaceful? hell no! they were busy waxing saddam's anus.

pete

[Akai Bushi]

Yes, I can understand out in the farmland areas the need for younger people driving. But, If you saw what I see everyday here in San Diego you might be scared for your life. These high school students have no care for other people's safety. Completely oblivious to the people around them.

And the difference between hard stuff and beer and wine is it's alot easier to die from drinking too much Rum than drinking too much beer. Beer just makes you too full to get that point of alchole poisoning, unless someone is cramming it down your throat. What I'm thinking of is getting people use to their limits before they just dive into a bottle of 151.

[louisvandalen]

I believe your 'founding fathers' specifically added the right to bear arms so that the American people could stand up against their goverment..

Aight, on sale next: M1A1 Abrahams and F16's in mint condition. And the best part: you can drive them as soon as you reach 16 (or 12 in some parts of canada). :)

Man, that's gonna be a dangerous continent.

Best regards,

Louis

[Commander]

The UK is so screwed up compared to the US.

Scrap council tax!
:mad2:

everything is so expensive here it just isn't fair, if only someone could stand up take control and do something about it.

Who is with me??

[DCPan]

gas price: guess who has the oil, and guess who sets the oil price? it's supply and demand.



No, gas prices gone up last week despite a drop in the price of crude oil.

[TylerY]

http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/video_player.html?fifth_sticks&playerType=wmp


US politics scares me

[drizzt]

to the debate about age and drinking. I personaly look at it this way. I would refuse to be drafted in the US because im not a ful citizen. I do not have all the rights of a Full citizen. even an imigrant thats over 21 has more rights than i do. I find it offensive that im treated as second class, yet can still be drafted, can still be executed as an adult........

just my opinion. i have a new topic im going to bring up tommorow, but its a fairly sensitive issue and i want it worded 100% right before i post.

i apreciate the fact that people have followed the guidelines and kept this thread clean for the most part. It is interesting to have a fun, non derogatory, political discussion. Thanks alot guys, and lets keep this going :)

[Fonsz]

Hiya Drizzt,
Just heard about the setbacks you are encountering. I wish you all the best and strenght for the near future. This has nothing to do with this thread but I just wanted to tell you this.
To get back on track try to do suburi and practice your grip while doing this. Hopefully you will get a grip on your life and your Kendo this way.
Greetings

[drizzt]

Hiya Drizzt,
Just heard about the setbacks you are encountering. I wish you all the best and strenght for the near future. This has nothing to do with this thread but I just wanted to tell you this.
To get back on track try to do suburi and practice your grip while doing this. Hopefully you will get a grip on your life and your Kendo this way.
Greetings

thanks for the kind words man. Im not even going to be allowed to put weight on my foot for four weeks or more. ive been doing the wonderful world of doctor hopping all day. hopefuly i can get my gear down here and sit in bed working on suburi pretty soon. Im going to try to find a local dojo after im back up to moving and start working before i go back to my home dojo(at A&M)

this is absolutly miserable, but im lucky. this is not the MSRA version of staff, so it is going away and the wound is closing. its about 2cm deep at its deepest(the peak depth was over 7) and is about 2inches across. hopefuly it will heel up soon. the biggest worry right now is if it is realy on the bone at all. were not shure of that one.

anyway, thanks for the concern :). i appreciate it

[Wifenmummy]

drizzt hope it all gets better for you soon!
oil price is going up.. we pay thru the nose for fuel here average price is over $1 a litre isnt all meant to do with demad and with iraq oil being slow to produce with risks and militants and stuff? And didnt a few refineries (sp?) close last year or the year before in africa or somethin (cant really remember)
America has a huge problem with guns here in aust its pretty strict going but of course theres still the small amount of illegal firearms held by the bikers, asian gangs in sydney and a few retired old men who like the odd illegal hunting every once in awhile.. not incrediably voilent over here with guns.. thank goodness! Altho there was one instance of a kid bringing a harpoon gun and crowsbows to school? i should know as it was in this state but not sure which was used.. Doesnt bowling for columbine movie say it all for USA? that they just love guns so theres no way for any gun reform?!
learning to drive while young is perfectly fine as long as the young adult/teen is responsible, knows the consequences, laws etc. As long as they have had some classes and good lessons with a adult driver passes a few government based tests and then remains a responsible driver. I personally dont drive myself..
as for france.. dont expect alot of aussies liking france.. we compete with their wine and stuff.. not to mention how its wrong for someone else to invade but its ok for them.. ???!!! go figure!
another thing can someone put it simply but what on earth is syria military doing in lebanon?! why arent they in syria?! whats with the whole middle east countries in other countries?!

[drizzt]

the problem with gu control, it majoritivly keeps the guns out of legal, responsible owners hands. thieves will get guns no matter what. i mean, look at the number of illegal weapons(assault rifles, machine guns purchased illegaly)are floating around, despite our laws. majoritivly there in people who ont legaly own guns, nor use them for target practice or hunting.

gun control is very ineffective for the most part. you ban guns, and people will smuggle them in. its just that simple.

[samurai999]

Hmm. I remember that there was a school shooting in Britain a while back where this maniac went in an shot up some kids in a school yard. Britain has a "no guns" policy. I guess if people need guns, they'll get 'em.

Tim

[Hank]

the problem with gu control, it majoritivly keeps the guns out of legal, responsible owners hands. thieves will get guns no matter what. i mean, look at the number of illegal weapons(assault rifles, machine guns purchased illegaly)are floating around, despite our laws. majoritivly there in people who ont legaly own guns, nor use them for target practice or hunting.

gun control is very ineffective for the most part. you ban guns, and people will smuggle them in. its just that simple.

Hmm...What about the people on the terror watchlists going to gun shows and buying up huge quantities of guns? The ease of buying weapons in the US has made the country an international clearinghouse for guns of all types.

Also, criminals with connections will get guns, yes, but I think the control laws are more aimed at people who perform crimes of passion - not hardened criminals, but those who need to solve a perceived problem and just happen to find a gun laying around the house. A huge proportion of gun deaths are family members killing other family members in a fit of passion when a gun happened to be handy. Granted, this is a societal problem (people should be rational enough to not shoot each other), but a quick fix would be to try to make it harder to just pick up a gun and shoot someone (ie possibly trigger-lock mechanisms or easier bullet tracing, not having the gun there in the first place - I don't know).

How do you explain the drastically lower amount of gun deaths in countries with strict gun laws? Even in those with moderate gun laws there is a much lower number of deaths via guns. Either we in the US are just much more violent and pathologically self-centered than everyone else in the world, or it's the availablity of guns. Or a mixture of both, which is probably the case.

Now, I don't particularly like Michael Moore and I thought Fahrenheit 911 was pretty over-the-top and inflamatory, but Bowling for Columbine brings up some very good points. It's just too bad it was the obnoxious Moore who pointed them out.

Hank.

[Neil Gendzwill]

gun control is very ineffective for the most part. you ban guns, and people will smuggle them in. its just that simple.
It's really hard to do direct comparisons from country to country. The US has a huge number of guns in the country. If they banned guns of any type, it still would be years and years before they could really get rid of them. But places like Canada which have had gun control in effect for a long time don't have that problem. If you look at the violent crimes stats for Canada, you'll see a much lower percentage committed with guns. So apparently the gun control here isn't resulting in too much smuggling. I don't think the average dopey criminal has the resources to smuggle guns, or the cash to buy a smuggled gun. But a gun purchased from a shop or stolen from a shop (or purchased from a guy who stole it from the shop) is much more in reach.

Anyways, the US has a much different culture and history regarding guns than Canada and I don't think the situation is so simple as many pro gun control people think. That's not to say I agree with their laws, but just that I don't have the background to fully understand the problem. Gun control debates are endless anyways, and nobody ever changes anyone's mind.

[drizzt]

bowling for columbine was a disgrace. Those little ******* were sick, so other scum makes a movie so they can blame everyone else. go figure

sorry that was a little bit flaming, but the movie itself is a giant flame on society.

[Hank]

bowling for columbine was a disgrace. Those little ******* were sick, so other scum makes a movie so they can blame everyone else. go figure

sorry that was a little bit flaming, but the movie itself is a giant flame on society.The kids who shot up columbine were sick and I blame them for all they did. But to think they are the only ones to blame - well, I think that's a little short-sighted. The whole incident didn't happen in a vacuum. I don't take any blame off those guys - I just add more to other people. There's more than enough to go around.

And the movie isn't really about columbine at all.

Hank.

[drizzt]

The kids who shot up columbine were sick and I blame them for all they did. But to think they are the only ones to blame - well, I think that's a little short-sighted. The whole incident didn't happen in a vacuum. I don't take any blame off those guys - I just add more to other people. There's more than enough to go around.

And the movie isn't really about columbine at all.

Hank.

no its an attempt to advance a political standpoint through a tragedy. that movie is very much a liberal stand point. you have to be willing to look at both sides of the coin. it doesnt

There is NO blame to be laid on anyone but those little so and so's. i own guns, i was the fat kid who was picked on. i had mental problems when i was younger(depression)because i was tortured. guess what i never did(and i assure you i am much better trained and able to do it, i am an expert shot and have been taught more than just the basics of urban assault tactics(combination of paintball and having friends who are ex-special forces). I never shot up a school. I feel no pitty for the two sickos who shot up that school. There is no excuse for killing. PEople need to stop blaming it on "society" and "the media". that flys about as far as a bag of cement with me. i listened(i dont anymore) to the same kinds of music they did(to a small extent), whatched the same tv, was exposed to the same "social pressures". guess what ALOT of the rest of the world does to.

We live in a time were noone is willing to say "I decided to do this, i did it because i felt i was right. i knew of the other options, perhaps that there were better options, but i chose to do this". the legal possesion of firearms in this country may have helped out by giving them a little easier access to the weapons, but it is not a cause. media and "social" influences dont even come close to flying. as i said i have been tortured far beyond what they described what those two boys were. I have never started a fight, nor have i killed anyone.

im sorry but i am a very vehement person about this. I despise the "it was his fault not mine" atittude.

i guess im breaking my own rules hear**Slaps self** ill try to keep my own posts a little less heated from now on. this is just a topic that gets me up and speeking.

[Wifenmummy]

"Now, I don't particularly like Michael Moore and I thought Fahrenheit 911 was pretty over-the-top and inflamatory, but Bowling for Columbine brings up some very good points. It's just too bad it was the obnoxious Moore who pointed them out."- Hank

very true.. havent seen fah 911..
gun control over the top here..
but u could buy bullets from walmart the same shop u could buy a stuffed toy or kids clothes?! now for me that was weird...
eep u broke ur own rules.. :(
i was picked on heaps. i went goth & depressed in late years of high school (grade 12) i was weird.. i didnt want revenge.. my mind was twisted but im pretty straight & normal now!

[Hank]

im sorry but i am a very vehement person about this. I despise the "it was his fault not mine" atittude. Yeah, me too. This is not what I was saying in my previous post. I'm all for personal responsibility.

Say a guy robs a bank. He just walks in while the guard is asleep and goes up to the unlocked vault and takes the money. Does the fact that the guard was asleep and the vault unlocked take any less blame from the crook? No. Can you also place blame on the guard for not doing his duty and on the bank for not locking their vaults? Sure you can.

I blame the kids. But I also blame other people. It's not taking any blame away from the kids, it's just adding more if it elsewhere. If you insist that all blame lies solely on the kids, then maybe you are putting blinders on because of your own political agenda. Personally, I'm not crazy for gun control. I've enjoyed target shooting with rifles, shotguns and handguns. Even though I don't hunt, I see nothing wrong with it as a means to keep herds healthy. I'm a gun control moderate - and there are crazies on both sides of the issue.

But, like Neil said - the chances of us affecting each other's view is nill, so this argument will probably go nowhere.

Hank.

[drizzt]

this is a different situation than the bank guard scenario. by putting blame on others, you give them excuses. thats my real issue with this. there are times im willing to put the blame on others, regardless of my own agenda. situations like this are just a bit different in my mind

[drizzt]

lets branch out on another discussion. Lets pick up an internal debate froma coutnry besides the us. or maybe something international. Lets keep it going good :)

[Fonsz]

lets branch out on another discussion. Lets pick up an internal debate froma coutnry besides the us. or maybe something international. Lets keep it going good :)
Hi Drizzt,
Nice to see you again.
We can form the following conclusions:
Gun laws and stuff is a US topic that people outside the US can't really relate to. Since it is non existent in other parts of the world. Movies like Bowling for Columbine are also not really a help in this matter.
Gasoline prices are also not comparable to the US, you folks obviously need your mobility. I sometimes see MTV where a celebrity shows you his or her house, and when you arrive at the garage, they have something like 20 cars. Sounds a bit over the top to me but if that's the American Dream I don't think we can do anything about it.
Taxes are universally disliked so that was a nice start, but it didn't really work out.
The comparison of the age of drinking, driving and voting was rather interesting. Here you saw that in Europe that things are really different as in the US. It is just a matter of where a society puts their priorities. That was funny to see.
The link to the Canadian News program got me really scared. There are people on prime time TV telling blatant lies and telling other people to shut up when they have a point, This is bad news. When the blond woman persisted that Canada has sent troops to Vietnam (which they didn't) with a straight face it made me feel scary about how opinions are formed, or created. It also explained why some US forumites react so strongly when you try to say that there is also a flip side of the coin.
So I think we had a civilized adult conversation but it has petered down. I think the reason of this is the current discourse of Japan and his neighbors. If you are not involved in it (if you're not of Chinese or Japanese descent) then it is a bit iffy to form an opinion.
So Drizzt since you have some time on your hands so to speak I'm afraid that coming up with another topic falls on your already heavily burdened shoulders.
Maybe we should move over to the Japan/China troubles. But I want you to say that I followed this thread to the end
Take care.

[Neil Gendzwill]

When the blond woman persisted that Canada has sent troops to Vietnam (which they didn't) with a straight face it made me feel scary about how opinions are formed, or created.
We never sent any, but quite a few Canadians volunteered and fought with the US. Still doesn't make Coulter any less scary. I hate that kind of rhetoric with a passion.

[drizzt]

hmmm lemme see if i can come up with some great universal topic(beside the war in Iraq, wich is a good way to start an argument :))

[samurai999]

Funny thing is in terms of Michael Moore.. The only place where I saw a majority of people liking Michael Moore is in the Liberal Northern California. Some places are decidedly ultra-liberal.

Hmm... What about "should the next president of the US be from a major political party?" say Dems or Repubs?

Tim

[drizzt]

not a bad idea. hmmmm the big problem with a small party is they tend to play to specific groups.....very small specific groups.

[Fonsz]

Funny thing is in terms of Michael Moore.. The only place where I saw a majority of people liking Michael Moore is in the Liberal Northern California. Some places are decidedly ultra-liberal.

Hmm... What about "should the next president of the US be from a major political party?" say Dems or Repubs?

Tim
Don't forget that his movies were blockbusters here in Europe and the topic of many discussions on prime time talkshows. Even people who in Holland you can't possibly call Liberal said that he had a point there. Sometimes it is useful to view things from a distance, when you're involved in something you're too close to see what happens.
Hi Drizzt,
Maybe we can compare medical care around the world since you are obviuosly sadly the expert of this across the pond.

[samurai999]

Personally, I'd like to think of myself as a moderate who is "slightly" leaning right. But mainly moderate.

Some examples, although I believe that assault weapons such as AKs, Kalashnikovs (sp?), sawed off shotguns, have no use in todays society, it is ultimately the human behind the trigger of an inadamant object that is responsible. I am for some type of border "security". I am for stem cell research. I am DEAD against illegal aliens getting drivers licenses (even if they ARE from my own race). I believe that all races have the same right to get into college and not have one race be favored over the other. (That is, the University of California debate of favoring blacks over whites) Maybe these could be topics too.

Well coming from a VERY liberal area of California, I would say that most thinking of Northern California is fairly in line with a lot of European citizens. I'm not sure what constitutes conservative or liberal in Europe, but as far as I know, the thinking is fairly similar.

Tim

[Optomitrist]

I think its funny that Moores movie came out right before the election and supposedly had the ability to change the minds of voters and kerry still lost. That is awsome. media ulitmately doesn't change a thing. The democrats just got roudy when they saw their savior moores 911 movie while republican/conservatives like myself refuse to see movies like that in fear of an aneurism.

[Optomitrist]

Personally, I'd like to think of myself as a moderate who is "slightly" leaning right. But mainly moderate.

Some examples, although I believe that assault weapons such as AKs, Kalashnikovs (sp?), sawed off shotguns, have no use in todays society, it is ultimately the human behind the trigger of an inadamant object that is responsible. I am for some type of border "security". I am for stem cell research. I am DEAD against illegal aliens getting drivers licenses (even if they ARE from my own race). I believe that all races have the same right to get into college and not have one race be favored over the other. (That is, the University of California debate of favoring blacks over whites) Maybe these could be topics too.

Well coming from a VERY liberal area of California, I would say that most thinking of Northern California is fairly in line with a lot of European citizens. I'm not sure what constitutes conservative or liberal in Europe, but as far as I know, the thinking is fairly similar.

Tim


hmmm, why would california have the view points of eurpean nations? You cant get much farther away geographically. :cat:

[samurai999]

Note its not ALL of California. Political viewpoints differ greatly across California. It is in the SF bay area for all intensive purposes where a lot of liberals are. For every president that we have elected, the SF bay area always elected a democratic president. (even Mondale and Dukakis... ugh) We have the only senate representative who voted AGAINST the war on terror. The first mayor in the US to hold gay marriages in SF. A call for a TOTAL ban on firearms (and this at one point included paintball markers i believe, but not sure of the validity of this statement)etc etc... We have anti-war movements start/take place here, anti-logging, pro-environment(ie Kyoto Treaty), anti-large business, anti-world bank, etc. All I consider largely liberal movements.

As for Euro nations, (unless somebody can point out something different) it seems on the whole that they support most of those types of legislations. Thats why i think they are similar.

Tim

[h2o]

As for Euro nations, (unless somebody can point out something different) it seems on the whole that they support most of those types of legislations. Thats why i think they are similar.

More or less. We had lots of anti-war campaigns in the early days of the invasion of Iraq (and the Vietnam war, but that was quite a long time ago :)) and I don't think there is even one European country where civilians are permitted to carry a firearm for their own protection. Just as it is forbidden to carry knives, axes, swords, etc. in public.

Gay marriages is a hot topic though... at least here. There are those that are pro, and there are those that are con.

Btw, why has "Liberal" (as it seems to me, from the other side of the globe) become a bad word in the US? Here it is almost the other way around. Liberal is a good word, conservative is a boring one.

[El Gringo]

Interesting observation there H2O-san. Never really thought about this point until you brought it up, but for what it's worth, the reason we in Europe use conservative in a negative way is IMHO due to the fact that conservatism has not really done much good in this region. For instance the Thatcher era here in Britain caused many more problems than it was worth for our society, this was then followed up by the Conservative party having leaders who were considered boring eg. John Major, William Hague.

Another point that comes to mind is that extreme consevative views tend to breed (in this country at least) very extremist political parties like the BNP and UKIP whos policies boader on rascism or worse.

When you look at the other side of the scale, extreme liberals, you find the Green party, all they want is for our country to look after itself better by using more energy efficiency etc. I cant see how anybody would see this side as bad.

As for the way people use the terms in America I cant really make much comment as my knowledge is limited, but I do get the impression that Republicans are seen as people who stand for the founding principles of the USA, the Liberals being apposed to the Republicans have been made to look somewhat anti-america in their outlook.

[drizzt]

dang saamuri didnt we argue pretty strongly in another thread? I have to agree with everything you said but the gun control issues. i think the only reason we disagree there is becasue of the difference in location and situation.

The only reason i beleive any of the guns listed(and i think you spelled it right....time to break out my russian text book. Oh btw an ak is a kalashnikov), is for sport shooting, and then ONLY in a semi automatic format. fulla uto at a gun range is dangerous.i had a man arrested at a range i went to while visiting friends once(he didnt know it was me......and fortunatly it was in a different state) for dang near blowing my head off with a AK because he couldnt control it. I think people here in the more rural south(and yes the soouth is much more rural, and proud of it) look at guns more as tools for hunting and sport shooting than people do in areas like the more heavily populated city's, simply for the fact that we see guns everyday used constructivley, while city and urban dwellers tend to only see them used in crime.

I guess in a way i can understand gun control in some areas, but here it is not an issue the way it is elsewere. I was raised shooting guns(and being taught some hard stead fast rules) from the very beginning. here you dont see as many thugs walking around with a pistol they barely know what kind of ammo to buy, much less gun safety, shoved down there pants. you find young kids to old men that will chew you out(i was 6 yrs old and chewed out a guy for handing me a gun wrong)for improper safety. here guns are not something little kids are afraid of, there tought to use them properly and safely. my littlest cousins have seen guns no more than a handful of times, and they will tell you the four rules. "1.a gun is always loaded, check to make shure, you fire a gun for 3 reason(other 3 rules)1. to kill for food, 2. to defend your life and your family's life, 3. to SAFELY target shoot". those things have been taught to me since i was old enough to shoot a gun, even playing with toy guns........

my point is, I think that is the root of disagreement over gun control. I am a firm beleiver that the right to regulate firearms is a states right issue. An all encompassing fire arms control bill is unfair to the entire country. You severly control them, and you destroy a way of life and traditions that have survived here in the south, and realy do very little to curb crime. beleive it or not, here in the deepest of the deep south(you go much farther south and you no longer in the us here.....) i can count on one hand the number of murders in the last year commited with a gun. on the other hand there have been TWO tonight(little ******* **** ***** serial killer....honorless little so and so I may be able to tick another one off on that list of violent crimes violent crimes if hes not careful with some of the sons and grandson of the women he killed......he broke in and has been beating old women to death.....4 of them before they caught him about 30 minutes ago) that were beating, and there are stabbings CONSTANTLY.

However you introduce a bill thats totaly ineffective at stopping gun carrying and usage in the more heavily populate ares, mainly north of here, were guns arent as prevelant, you do them a great injustice.

Local authorities are going to have to decide the matter, not the national government. they can respond directly to the needs in the area, not the national government. aside from that, it IS a right reserved for the state govenments according to our constitution.

[drizzt]

Btw, why has "Liberal" (as it seems to me, from the other side of the globe) become a bad word in the US? Here it is almost the other way around. Liberal is a good word, conservative is a boring one.



mainly because "liberals" have taken up positions on a whole opposed to a large percentage of the country(im generalixzing) not all have, but whrn its said rudely, thats generaly why.they tend to identify with minority groups(and im not using that in any way shape fashion or form as a racist term. im not even refering to race), and take up stances only popular with them. its hard to be a "conservative activist" or you get branded as a big bad booger bear oppressing people. welcome to a DEMOCRACY were the people are supposed to decide by a vote, not by the politburo ....... excuse me i mean the supreme court, handing out edicts. If the politicians cared about the rest of america NOT living on the northeastern seaboard, they would figure that out. Its basicaly because there the group taking up the less popular position, but yet still getting there way


yeah fonsz, we could trade notes on our countries fine orthopedic and infectious disease control programs. i have way to much unwatned experience

[Fonsz]

Aha the initiator of this gradually growing thread is back again and has been heard of.
Drizzt I think you made it clear where you stand for and what you stand for. Apparently these are values and or rules that apply to the Deep South of the US. The same values and rules could never be moved to different parts of the world or of the US as you said. If what you say about the killing rate in your surroundings is true than I suppose that's a good thing. Lets' just say that it is ok where you live and you like to keep it that way.
Well then the Liberals, I like to think that it is a good thing to concern yourself about the people who are not well of and have to work for a living. Some would say that this is Socialism but whatever you call it, I think it is unfair that some folks own everything and others don't. Rule of thumb is that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. This is not a good thing. Someone said that the trouble with Socialism is Socialism and the bad thing about Capitalism is Capitalists. So true I think. Like Mr Water from Sweden mentioned, in Europe Liberal is good and Conservative is usually not very good we have a lot of examples before we came to the above mentioned conclusion. It is also very strange that people who practice or are interested in something very Conservative, namely Kendo can still be labeled Liberal or in your case Rural. it seems we have got to have a connection somewhere don't you think?
And please don't shoot me if you disagree.:grin:
Ps this was a joke.

[Hank]

mainly because "liberals" have taken up positions on a whole opposed to a large percentage of the country(im generalixzing) not all have, but whrn its said rudely, thats generaly why.they tend to identify with minority groups(and im not using that in any way shape fashion or form as a racist term. im not even refering to race), and take up stances only popular with them. its hard to be a "conservative activist" or you get branded as a big bad booger bear oppressing people. welcome to a DEMOCRACY were the people are supposed to decide by a vote, not by the politburo ....... excuse me i mean the supreme court, handing out edicts. If the politicians cared about the rest of america NOT living on the northeastern seaboard, they would figure that out. Its basicaly because there the group taking up the less popular position, but yet still getting there wayThe US is split pretty evenly - the last election was something like 51-49% and the previous one was even closer. So, if by "large percentage" you mean about half, then ok. And how is representing minority groups bad? I don't get it.

Many "conservative activists" do want to oppress people. Maybe they aren't seeing it that way, but when you propose laws restricting freedoms or favoring certain groups over others, well, it's oppression.

Are you talking about "the politburo" that installed GWB as president the first time around? The supreme court and other courts are doing their job and doing it well. You must be extremely right-wing to call the conservative-leaning supreme court "the politburo".

What's bad about the politicians (on both sides) is they have us arguing about the small stuff while they rake in tons o cash from big corporations and pass laws according to who gave them what instead of listening to the people. This is a big problem and sometimes I can't believe that people stand for it. People in general don't have much say in the government anymore and it's just getting worse.

Sorry for being US-centric in this post, but, hey, it's where I live.

Hank.

[Fonsz]

What's bad about the politicians (on both sides) is they have us arguing about the small stuff while they rake in tons o cash from big corporations and pass laws according to who gave them what instead of listening to the people. This is a big problem and sometimes I can't believe that people stand for it. People in general don't have much say in the government anymore and it's just getting worse.


Hank.
I hear ya, and rant on, because these are the topics where everyone in the US should be concerned about. This matter is what I consider the root of all evil, I think that Drizzt and his good ole' boys can shoot squirrels as long as they want for all I care, but the matter you just stated is too important.

[drizzt]

The US is split pretty evenly - the last election was something like 51-49% and the previous one was even closer. So, if by "large percentage" you mean about half, then ok. And how is representing minority groups bad? I don't get it.

Many "conservative activists" do want to oppress people. Maybe they aren't seeing it that way, but when you propose laws restricting freedoms or favoring certain groups over others, well, it's oppression.


im not refering to the overall politics(or any party) im talking about a very small group.

representing minorities is absolutley right and necessary. forcing the majority to change there lives because this minority does not like things others do IS wrong, especialy when they use said minority status to force there views on others. its not defending rights im worried about, thats fine, its enforcing the will of a tiny group on the rest of us.

i wouldnt call our supremem court leaning to conservative, if anything there coming away from being OVERTLY liberal to middle of the road. Im going to stay away from the election debates, i personaly dont beleive the case had any buisness in the courts in the first place, it was a petty name calling squabble

as to the rant. RANT on brother. keep yelling and screaming until our voice is heard. THATS my problem in general, especialy with the supreme court. I have no say in a Government BY the PEOPLE and FOR the PEOPLE, and am generaly being ignored by it..........

[drizzt]

ill break into a new post.

Fonsz makes a great point, although i dont know if he meant to. These matters, like gun control etc., can never be settled until we the people have a say in our government. Until EVERYONEs, and yes i mean EVERYONE,liberal and conservative are heard, we live in a state that no longer is what our constitution means....

[drizzt]

Aha the initiator of this gradually growing thread is back again and has been heard of.
Drizzt I think you made it clear where you stand for and what you stand for. Apparently these are values and or rules that apply to the Deep South of the US. The same values and rules could never be moved to different parts of the world or of the US as you said. If what you say about the killing rate in your surroundings is true than I suppose that's a good thing. Lets' just say that it is ok where you live and you like to keep it that way.
Well then the Liberals, I like to think that it is a good thing to concern yourself about the people who are not well of and have to work for a living. Some would say that this is Socialism but whatever you call it, I think it is unfair that some folks own everything and others don't. Rule of thumb is that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. This is not a good thing. Someone said that the trouble with Socialism is Socialism and the bad thing about Capitalism is Capitalists. So true I think. Like Mr Water from Sweden mentioned, in Europe Liberal is good and Conservative is usually not very good we have a lot of examples before we came to the above mentioned conclusion. It is also very strange that people who practice or are interested in something very Conservative, namely Kendo can still be labeled Liberal or in your case Rural. it seems we have got to have a connection somewhere don't you think?
And please don't shoot me if you disagree.:grin:
Ps this was a joke.
smart....

i see people did catch the politburo crack then....good :)

you are right though. my rules and values are not the same as other parts of the country necessarily. this is a huge country, with several ingrained regional cultures. on reason i beleive so strongly in states rights. although in Texas were kind of our own mini set of subcultures(were bigger than ALOT of countries so....)


funny add on to that. do you realise texas is considered a captive nation by the world courts. technicaly they dont consider us annexed, they consider us a surrendered state :)

[Fonsz]

ill break into a new post.

Fonsz makes a great point, although i dont know if he meant to. These matters, like gun control etc., can never be settled until we the people have a say in our government. Until EVERYONEs, and yes i mean EVERYONE,liberal and conservative are heard, we live in a state that no longer is what our constitution means....
Of course I meant to make a great point it's just like in Kendo. I try to make great points, unfortunately it doesn't always work that way it sometimes falls flat. But to return to the present state of the constitution and stuff. These are not really topics that we, the people from the rest of the world, can relate to. It seems that Capitalists are ruling in the US and are buying the country lock, stock and smoking barrel, as Hank has so eloquently put it. The Enron scandal is an omen of the shape of things to come I guess. The whole world is holding their breath because the US dollar is losing its value and still it seems that everyone seems to uphold a lifestyle as if there is no tomorrow. On the other hand there are folks who want to roam in the bush shoot squirrels and live like Daniel Boone. This is also hard to understand.
What did your constitution actually wanted to say? Wise men drafted a letter which was convenient for that day and age. We are now quite some time in the future, I don't think that some "rules" should be current nowadays but then again what do I know about the US.

[Neil Gendzwill]

representing minorities is absolutley right and necessary. forcing the majority to change there lives because this minority does not like things others do IS wrong, especialy when they use said minority status to force there views on others.
I see... just picking an example out of the air, here. I guess the minority of black people that were slaves were wrong to want to change their status. This change of status had a big negative impact on the white majority who were owners. As the majority is always right...

[samurai999]

Many "conservative activists" do want to oppress people. Maybe they aren't seeing it that way, but when you propose laws restricting freedoms or favoring certain groups over others, well, it's oppression.

Hank.

Well, thats where people take different stances.. How free should we be? Anarchist free? or Free with control? Take freedom of speech for instance. Janet Jacksons wardrobe "malfunction" in the superbowl was a hot button topic. Liberal people saying "well its a free country and let them do what they want. People watch porn anyways and it was tame in comparison". On the other hand (which is more towards the side i'm on) why are we letting this being shown as a "family show" nationally where little kids watch? Don't we have rating systems in place for what content is in these shows? This topic is a whole argument in itself..

As for guns, AKs, sawed off shotguns, uzis, subs, etc are rarely used for "self-defense" or hunting or for sport. They are mainly used to kill people and unfortunately if people want them, they'll get them (illegally or legally). But, I support sport shooting (I tried that as a kid with a .22 with the boy scouts), hunting, etc. But not in the hands of criminals, or loons. It is really hard to keep track of what kinds of guns should be illegal or not since a lot of guns change every day in addition to having different types come out and therein lies the problem of some form of control.. My friend is a sport shooter and competes in tournaments. His gun, a "sports version of an M16" rifle that is regularly used at competitions for years was banned by the state of california recently since they redefined it as an "assault rifle".

As for liberals being bad, it depends on the level. If you are blindly saying liberal is good without thinking of how bad it can get, then i believe that is bad since it can become communist or anarchist. Thats why i believe in balance.. Being overly conservative is bad too (ie nazi, or zionist). My history teacher in HS explained this well. If you take a piece of paper and looked at the far left and the far right, the edges can touch together when you curl it up and you basically have the same thing. Overly crazed, power hungry, extremists with no sense of anything else. And since these guys are polar opposites, they clash.

my 0.02$(US),
Tim

[drizzt]

Your not getting it. you realy have misunderstood my issue, nor my meaning. Let me sit down and clarify this, because i dont want someone taking the wrong impression from me.

The minority must ALWAYS be represented. racial, ethnic, creed, sexuality, whatever. This country was founded to ensure EVERYONE had EQUAL rights. It is not my intention to say that the majority is always right, nor do i make a claim the minority cannot lobby for change. My problem, and the big problem with the supreme court system, is the minorit imposing there will over the rest of us. EQUALITY is wonderful, but it must be TOTAL, not repressing one group, minority or majority, for the other group to be promoted.

The salvery example is an issue of human rights. it is not a principle advocated by our constitution(not in the meaning anyway.....) becasue it limits others rights.....kind of a bad example

[Neil Gendzwill]

You didn't clarify yourself in the slightest. Maybe you should give an example.

[drizzt]

As for guns, AKs, sawed off shotguns, uzis, subs, etc are rarely used for "self-defense" or hunting or for sport. They are mainly used to kill people and unfortunately if people want them, they'll get them (illegally or legally). But, I support sport shooting (I tried that as a kid with a .22 with the boy scouts), hunting, etc. But not in the hands of criminals, or loons. It is really hard to keep track of what kinds of guns should be illegal or not since a lot of guns change every day in addition to having different types come out and therein lies the problem of some form of control.. My friend is a sport shooter and competes in tournaments. His gun, a "sports version of an M16" rifle that is regularly used at competitions for years was banned by the state of california recently since they redefined it as an "assault rifle".

As for liberals being bad, it depends on the level. If you are blindly saying liberal is good without thinking of how bad it can get, then i believe that is bad since it can become communist or anarchist. Thats why i believe in balance.. Being overly conservative is bad too (ie nazi, or zionist). My history teacher in HS explained this well. If you take a piece of paper and looked at the far left and the far right, the edges can touch together when you curl it up and you basically have the same thing. Overly crazed, power hungry, extremists with no sense of anything else. And since these guys are polar opposites, they clash.

my 0.02$(US),
Tim

The point you make about guns is valid. often a "dangerous assault rifle" is used as a sporting weapon. I was shooting a real Russian built AK-m(aptimat(sp) kalashnikov 1947 modern.......almost ANY ak you see is technicaly an AK-m) target practicing just a few months ago. the friend who owned it collects them. he has never commited a crime worse than speeding. Again its the difference in culture and usage. Its hard to control things that are used safely and responsibly in one instance, and slaughtering people in another.

the second paragraph is realy a fairly accurate of the problems with radicals hehehehe

[Theta]

I see... just picking an example out of the air, here. I guess the minority of black people that were slaves were wrong to want to change their status. This change of status had a big negative impact on the white majority who were owners. As the majority is always right...

Picking extreme examples is and excellent testing technique for scientific and mathematical equations, but not social issues.



To be crass, this example fails because slaves were not citizens protected under the Constitution, in much the same way illegal aliens and minor children are not today. A better example would be the civil rights movement in the south US in the 50s and 60s. Slavery wasn’t a good thing, and slaves being made free is not an example of what drizzt was referring to.



When “minority rights” are forced upon the majority (and up-held by the newly self appointed legislative branch of government – the courts), in matters that do not oppress or harm minority groups, democracy fails. These types of issues are championed by US “liberals” who use the issues for publicity, and to get votes at election time. These issues are routinely not championed, or pursued by more than a handful of people who are “minorities”.



An example (not an extreme one, but a rather common one in the US and England from what I understand) is Christmas decorations in public. Now it’s debatable if a Christmas tree is “oppressive” to a muslim or a jew, but most jews and muslims in the US could care less about Christmas trees. At the same time, any “retaliatory” attempts by majority groups to have “minority” religious symbolism removed from public, is shot down by US “liberals” and the plaintiffs branded as racists.



European “liberals” (the Greens for example), and other socially progressive groups, who work within the system of government that exists in the US, do not (in my “conservative” opinion) have the same negative connotation as US “liberals” who find ways to circumvent the democratic process.



After sooo many national defeats, US “liberals” are using lawyers and the courts to pass laws, instead of congress. The ultimate political “sour grapes”. It is this practice that has a lot of US citizens upset, and tainted the term “liberal” with a negative connotation. While some people agree with and applaud the outcome of these situations, it is definitely not a “government of the people, by the people…”



Just an FYI for forum members outside of the US. In general, the citizens of the US more closely identify with “conservative” then they do “socialist”. Two Regan terms, GB, two Clinton (extremely conservative for a Democrat) terms, and now two fairly won GWB terms. The news that is broadcast in this country definitely has a slant that runs opposite of the majority views, so be careful of what data you use to determine the political climate in the US.

[Neil Gendzwill]

An example (not an extreme one, but a rather common one in the US and England from what I understand) is Christmas decorations in public. Now it’s debatable if a Christmas tree is “oppressive” to a muslim or a jew, but most jews and muslims in the US could care less about Christmas trees. At the same time, any “retaliatory” attempts by majority groups to have “minority” religious symbolism removed from public, is shot down by US “liberals” and the plaintiffs branded as racists.
See, there's an excellent example - probably the sort of thing that Drizzt was thinking of. But it's still a gray area. For example, I disagree with such a regulation (if it exists anywhere, it certainly doesn't here) but wholeheartedly agree with banning of school prayer in public school systems. I'm sure lots of conservatives don't see the difference. The difference is that in one case, the state is interfering with practice of religion (assuming for the sake of argument that a Christmas tree is a religious symbol). In the other, it's trying to teach religion. The state has no business being involved with religion at all, other than to protect people's rights to practice whatever religion they want (so long as such practice remains within the law).

[Theta]

As for guns, AKs, sawed off shotguns, uzis, subs, etc are rarely used for "self-defense" or hunting or for sport. They are mainly used to kill people and unfortunately if people want them, they'll get them (illegally or legally). But, I support sport shooting (I tried that as a kid with a .22 with the boy scouts), hunting, etc. But not in the hands of criminals, or loons. It is really hard to keep track of what kinds of guns should be illegal or not since a lot of guns change every day in addition to having different types come out and therein lies the problem of some form of control.. My friend is a sport shooter and competes in tournaments. His gun, a "sports version of an M16" rifle that is regularly used at competitions for years was banned by the state of california recently since they redefined it as an "assault rifle".

Your data is incredibly inaccurate on what "AKs, sawed off shotguns, uzis, subs" are used for. I work in a forensics lab as a firearms examiner, and the percentage of "AKs, sawed off shotguns, uzis, subs" that are used in crime are extremely low. Easily less than 1% of AKs in the US are used "to kill people". The most popular type of firearm used in crime (based on statistics gathered for a 2 year period in my lab) is a Ruger 9mm handgun, followed by the Lorcin/Bryco/Jennings family of handguns in various calibers.

The absolute lowest used type of guns used in crimes are .50 caliber rifles (now banned in CA, but never once used in a crime).

I agree with the rest of your quote. Here in Phoenix Arizona we have a new squad of detectives whos job it is to make sure that criminals who are caught with guns get prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Instead of letting local prosecutors plea bargain away weapons charges, prohibited possessors found with firearms are being brought up on weapons charge, or it is taken to the federal level. THIS is what is needed to curtail gun violence. Not punishing honest, law abiding citizens who have a right to possess firearms, by taking their guns from them.

[Theta]

In the other, it's trying to teach religion. The state has no business being involved with religion at all, other than to protect people's rights to practice whatever religion they want (so long as such practice remains within the law).

But prohibiting a muslim from praying is not protecting the muslim's rights to practice whatever religion they want. I believe muslim girls in France are prohibited from wearing their head scarves (or they were thinking about it), that is directly interferring with religion by the state - legal? there, but unconstitutional (my opinion) in the US. What prohibiting prayer in school does is prevents EVERYONE from practicing ANY religion.

In the US we are Constitutionally protected "...congress shall pass no laws..." "freedom of religion", not "freedom from religion".

Now if a school forces all students to say the same prayer, or pray at the same time, that isn't right, and I agree with you that "uniform prayer in school" should be banned. But prayer in school shouldn't be banned.

[Neil Gendzwill]

But prohibiting a muslim from praying is not protecting the muslim's rights to practice whatever religion they want. I believe muslim girls in France are prohibited from wearing their head scarves (or they were thinking about it), that is directly interferring with religion by the state - legal? there, but unconstitutional (my opinion) in the US.I agree with you there. The French ruling is stupid.
What prohibiting prayer in school does is prevents EVERYONE from practicing ANY religion.Not at all. It's preventing you from praying at that moment - it doesn't infringe on your religion, unless you're muslim or some other religion with required prayer breaks.
Now if a school forces all students to say the same prayer, or pray at the same time, that isn't right, and I agree with you that "uniform prayer in school" should be banned. But prayer in school shouldn't be banned.I agree - but that's the real issue, isn't it? The pro-prayer people want everyone to stand up and recite a Christian prayer at the start of the day. If you change it to a generic prayer, that's stupid - and discriminates against the atheists anyways :) The right thing to do is simply not have any organised thing. If a kid wants to pray on the school grounds, let them - they can pray 5 minutes before class starts as well as 5 minutes after.

The real issue is instruction of religion, which is entirely up to the family of the child. If they want to reinforce that instruction in the school, then they should enroll their child in a religious school.

[Theta]

I agree - but that's the real issue, isn't it? The pro-prayer people want everyone to stand up and recite a Christian prayer at the start of the day. If you change it to a generic prayer, that's stupid - and discriminates against the atheists anyways :)

Agree mostly. My understanding of the origins of the prayer in school debate is two seperate problems:

1) At the beginning of class the Pledge of Allegiance, where "One nation under God" is recited. The problem here being the athiests. "God" is generic enough to be acceptable to most religious people [and I don't think it's stupid to be generic, rather it's one of the main foundations of the US - we were founded as a religious nation, just any religion you choose to follow]. It's the athiests that get their knickers in a bunch. Well bad news people, athieism isn't a religion, and therefore not protected under the Constitution. "Freedom of religion", not "Freedom from religion".

2) Saying a silent prayer before lunch. This one is debatable, based on how it is an "organised" prayer session. I could see it prohibited if there is a good case where a religious group is prohibited from offering a silent prayer before meals. Other then that, I don't see a problem with even this "organized" prayer situation.

The right thing to do is simply not have any organised thing. If a kid wants to pray on the school grounds, let them - they can pray 5 minutes before class starts as well as 5 minutes after.

The real issue is instruction of religion, which is entirely up to the family of the child. If they want to reinforce that instruction in the school, then they should enroll their child in a religious school.

There is no "right" thing. A "right" thing would be something that makes everyone happy, or an "absolute" correct decision is handed down by a supreme being (still waiting on one of these - "We interrupt our regularly scheduled program to bring you a new release from God itself."). That isn't possible here. What "should" be done is that which offends the least amount of people, and is still legal. In today's highly polarized times, where "conservatives" and "liberals" are at each other's throats (in the US at least), both camps should remember that there is no "right" thing. Each side has a valid point based on their own subjective interpretations of the situtation. In an oligarchy, the few (upper social class/rich) control the decisions made. In a democracy the decisions should be made by public vote, unless the decision is illegal, and then the people need to vote again.

The scenario you point out, an organized recital of a christian prayer, shouldn't be allowed in a public school. I've never heard of such an example, but I wouldn't put it past some more rural areas to do this. Most prayer in school controversies are the scenarios I listed above. Even if everyone in attendance is christian it should still be banned, because it is in effect government establishing religion. In that case, the parents offended by the prohibition should enroll their students in a private/religious school [but then they shouldn't have to pay taxes to support the public school anymore, but that is another debate].

[drizzt]

i dong have time to read all this right now, yall were busy people while i slept dang.


the christmas decorations are a good example. i think i calrified my statement completely. I am AN ABSOLUTE EQUALIST when it comes to freedoms. No groups rights can be restricted for the promotion of others. I woudl feel the same way if a minority group was told to stop something because it offended me........ what were doing in the US today is coming dangerously close to the harrison Bergeron principle(if someone understands that i will give you an e-cookie :)).

A Democratic government cannot survive by catering to the lowest common denominator. They must recognize them, they must promote them, but they must look to the silent majority as well.

The problem with the US is we have become so **** politiclay correct, if I protest what another race, religion,creed is doing, im a RACIST or a BIGOT. if they protest what im doing there "fighting oppression for there rights".

[Hank]

Well, thats where people take different stances.. How free should we be? Anarchist free? or Free with control? Take freedom of speech for instance. Janet Jacksons wardrobe "malfunction" in the superbowl was a hot button topic. Liberal people saying "well its a free country and let them do what they want. People watch porn anyways and it was tame in comparison". On the other hand (which is more towards the side i'm on) why are we letting this being shown as a "family show" nationally where little kids watch? Don't we have rating systems in place for what content is in these shows? This topic is a whole argument in itself..I think the Jackson Boob Event was taken up as a cause (and blown way out of proportion) by certain minority groups to move an agenda - ie the ultraconservative family groups that want to control what people see in the name of religion. I find it funny how it's always sex that has these groups' panties in a bunch but violence doesn't seem to bother them at all. I say - it was an accident - stuff like this happens, there should have been a 5 second delay to catch these things, but, oh well.

As for guns, AKs, sawed off shotguns, uzis, subs, etc are rarely used for "self-defense" or hunting or for sport. They are mainly used to kill people and unfortunately if people want them, they'll get them (illegally or legally). But, I support sport shooting (I tried that as a kid with a .22 with the boy scouts), hunting, etc. But not in the hands of criminals, or loons. It is really hard to keep track of what kinds of guns should be illegal or not since a lot of guns change every day in addition to having different types come out and therein lies the problem of some form of control.. My friend is a sport shooter and competes in tournaments. His gun, a "sports version of an M16" rifle that is regularly used at competitions for years was banned by the state of california recently since they redefined it as an "assault rifle".Yeah, that's a problem. How do you let the sane people have fun with guns while keeping them away from the nutjobs? It's a hard question.

As for liberals being bad, it depends on the level. If you are blindly saying liberal is good without thinking of how bad it can get, then i believe that is bad since it can become communist or anarchist. Thats why i believe in balance.. Being overly conservative is bad too (ie nazi, or zionist). My history teacher in HS explained this well. If you take a piece of paper and looked at the far left and the far right, the edges can touch together when you curl it up and you basically have the same thing. Overly crazed, power hungry, extremists with no sense of anything else. And since these guys are polar opposites, they clash.That circular thing was shown to me back in school, too. I think that's true for what we've seen historically. But, I consider myself a liberal and I don't want anything like the totalitarian regimes of the past. I think people should be allowed to do what they want to do as long as it doesn't hurt anybody else (who isn't consenting to be hurt). And, fiscally, I feel sorry for people and realize that a stable society can't have large extremes, so I'm for welfare and stuff like that for people who need it.

Hank.

[Hank]

No groups rights can be restricted for the promotion of others. I woudl feel the same way if a minority group was told to stop something because it offended me........ what were doing in the US today is coming dangerously close to the harrison Bergeron principle(if someone understands that i will give you an e-cookie :)).Which minority group is having its rights promoted at the majority's expense right now? I can't think of any. Did you have something in mind?

I get the Vonnegut reference, but my browser's not accepting cookies at the moment.

A Democratic government cannot survive by catering to the lowest common denominator. They must recognize them, they must promote them, but they must look to the silent majority as well.

The problem with the US is we have become so **** politiclay correct, if I protest what another race, religion,creed is doing, im a RACIST or a BIGOT. if they protest what im doing there "fighting oppression for there rights".The problem with non-political-correctness is that a lot if it IS racist and bigotted. Some of it's not, but whenever someone complains about PCness or says (boasts) that they're not being politically correct, half the time or more, they are being racist or bigotted. Calling groups of people names, belittling their beliefs, making fun of their language - anything putting them down in relation to oneself is biggoted. I'm not saying you are doing this, I'm just relating my observations.

Hank.

[Hank]

1) At the beginning of class the Pledge of Allegiance, where "One nation under God" is recited. The problem here being the athiests. "God" is generic enough to be acceptable to most religious people [and I don't think it's stupid to be generic, rather it's one of the main foundations of the US - we were founded as a religious nation, just any religion you choose to follow]. It's the athiests that get their knickers in a bunch. Well bad news people, athieism isn't a religion, and therefore not protected under the Constitution. "Freedom of religion", not "Freedom from religion".Look at the spirit of the words instead of the semantics and I think you'll find that atheism is indeed covered by this. By keeping the wall between church and state, no one is preventing you from practicing your religion. But, by breaking down that wall you are saying to large groups of people that they are wrong and are not wanted in this country. Theocracies suck and always lean toward the totalitarian side of rule. Bad.

[samurai999]

I think the Jackson Boob Event was taken up as a cause (and blown way out of proportion) by certain minority groups to move an agenda - ie the ultraconservative family groups that want to control what people see in the name of religion. I find it funny how it's always sex that has these groups' panties in a bunch but violence doesn't seem to bother them at all. I say - it was an accident - stuff like this happens, there should have been a 5 second delay to catch these things, but, oh well.
Hank.

Ya, I'm also not too into the ultra-conservative "all hail the Lord" type of politics. Although religion should be part of our society, it can't be such that it consumes you (like the radical muslims for example). Eithics is such that it is a grey area in itself. What is right and wrong? People have been trying to define that for eons.... Then when it all seems to be defined, somebody just redraws the borders (stirs the pot) and the whole debate rages on again...

In terms of violence, that can range into a number of things. Banning violence such as war footage may be good since it is usually shown during "family time" and since it might reveal too much and could compromise the safety of our troops. I don't want to know what our troops are doing if that'll endanger their lives.

Tim

[Theta]

By keeping the wall between church and state, no one is preventing you from practicing your religion. But, by breaking down that wall you are saying to large groups of people that they are wrong and are not wanted in this country.

Your first sentence is categorically incorrect. There is a mighty big difference between a "seperation of church and state" and a "wall between church and state". This country (US) was founded by people seeking religious freedom. They never envisioned a government which forced, or prohibited, religious practices. Prayers are offered up in Congress, and our coinage states "In God we trust". A wall between church and state would be inconsistent with these facts, a seperation allows for religious practices and references by the government.

A seperation of church and state is one thing. A prohibition of religion of any kind taking place in a government run location does by definition prevent someone from practicing their religion. The net effect is forcing everyone in a "public place" to be athiests in behavior. This is a minority (athiests) "forcing" their beliefs and customs on the majority (via "judicial law making" - law suits to determine regulations).

If a muslim child needs to break during the day to pray privately while at school, they should be allowed to. If a christian child has been brought up to save grace over meals, they should be allowed to. If a jewish child isn't supposed to eat during a religious event, they shouldn't be forced to.

The government shouldn't force, or prohibit, anyone to carry out religious practices in public places. In my day, athiests or religious groups opposed to, students would either not pledge alligence, or would drop the offending passage. No harm, no foul. My liberal friend once told me this wasn't an acceptible solution because it makes some students stand out, and they might be made fun of. In today's climate of "embracing diversity", you would think that differences in students would be celebrated, not squashed or hidden for fear of children acting like children.

There is nothing wrong with being religious, but teaching children that it can't be done at school - it can only be done at home or in a place of worship - definately sends the wrong message. It teaches children that in some way religion is wrong, if not why do I need to "hide" to practice my faith.

[Theta]

But, I consider myself a liberal and I don't want anything like the totalitarian regimes of the past. I think people should be allowed to do what they want to do as long as it doesn't hurt anybody else (who isn't consenting to be hurt).

Saying the pledge, or praying at school, doesn't hurt anyone - soshouldn't they be allowed?

Now if someone doesn't, is picked on later, and is hurt - then you have just cause to punish the people who hurt others, not prohibit the original act that didn't hurt anyone.

[Hank]

Saying the pledge, or praying at school, doesn't hurt anyone - soshouldn't they be allowed?

Now if someone doesn't, is picked on later, and is hurt - then you have just cause to punish the people who hurt others, not prohibit the original act that didn't hurt anyone.It does hurt someone when an authority (a school) implies that everything someone believes is wrong. When I think of prayer in public schools I think of "a moment of prayer" when a person would get on the intercom and lead the whole school in a moment of prayer at the start of classes. This was common in the past. I believe this is what is referred to by the phrase "prayer in school". I don't think many people believe that individuals shouldn't be allowed to pray in school, as long as it isn't an organized event where people are going to feel forced into praying. Heck, the first amendment was put first for a reason - I fully stand by anyone's right to pray individually wherever they want to (as long as it's not interferring with someone else, of course). I encourage Christian students to wear t-shirts with holy scripture written all over them. But I don't want a "Wear your Christian t-shirt Day!" in public schools. That would be wrong. This is what I mean by a wall between church and state.

To talk about your other email - let's take the case of the Ten Commandments on public property - in this case, a courthouse. Maybe switch it around a little - you, a Christian, have to go to a court of law to defend yourself. As you enter the building you see a big sculpture spelling out Islamic law and in among it it says "Allah is the one true God and Mohammad is His Prophet." This would make you feel like quite the outsider, I expect (I could be wrong) and may even make you question your ability to get a fair trial. It would really seem as if the state is sponsoring Islam, wouldn't it? I think this is wrong and I think it violates the establishment clause and I think it is unpatriotic, since it goes against why this country was founded.

"In God we trust" was put on coins in 1861 during a religious revival era in the US. It appears nowhere before that. "Under God" was put in the pledge to differentiate the US from the godless commies. There is no religious tradition in American politics.

Hank.

[samurai999]

The problem with non-political-correctness is that a lot if it IS racist and bigotted. Some of it's not, but whenever someone complains about PCness or says (boasts) that they're not being politically correct, half the time or more, they are being racist or bigotted. Calling groups of people names, belittling their beliefs, making fun of their language - anything putting them down in relation to oneself is biggoted. I'm not saying you are doing this, I'm just relating my observations.

Hank.

Your guys' arguments is exactly the reason why extremes are bad socially..

Tim

[Theta]

It does hurt someone when an authority (a school) implies that everything someone believes is wrong. When I think of prayer in public schools I think of "a moment of prayer" when a person would get on the intercom and lead the whole school in a moment of prayer at the start of classes. This was common in the past. I believe this is what is referred to by the phrase "prayer in school". I don't think many people believe that individuals shouldn't be allowed to pray in school, as long as it isn't an organized event where people are going to feel forced into praying. Heck, the first amendment was put first for a reason - I fully stand by anyone's right to pray individually wherever they want to (as long as it's not interferring with someone else, of course). I encourage Christian students to wear t-shirts with holy scripture written all over them. But I don't want a "Wear your Christian t-shirt Day!" in public schools. That would be wrong. This is what I mean by a wall between church and state.

To talk about your other email - let's take the case of the Ten Commandments on public property - in this case, a courthouse. Maybe switch it around a little - you, a Christian, have to go to a court of law to defend yourself. As you enter the building you see a big sculpture spelling out Islamic law and in among it it says "Allah is the one true God and Mohammad is His Prophet." This would make you feel like quite the outsider, I expect (I could be wrong) and may even make you question your ability to get a fair trial. It would really seem as if the state is sponsoring Islam, wouldn't it? I think this is wrong and I think it violates the establishment clause and I think it is unpatriotic, since it goes against why this country was founded.

"In God we trust" was put on coins in 1861 during a religious revival era in the US. It appears nowhere before that. "Under God" was put in the pledge to differentiate the US from the godless commies. There is no religious tradition in American politics.

Hank.

We agree then that religion and prayer should not be prohibited in school. Thank you for defining your interpretation of a wall between church and state.

As a religious christian I would not be offended, made to feel like an outsider, and certainly not hurt by the Islamic statue and passage you described as an example. My faith is only one of many in this country. I respect other people's faiths, and if a community deceided to erect such a statue in front of a courthouse, that would be their choice. I do not see how it would violate the estalishment clause "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
No laws were written to establish a religion, no one is prevented from free exercise of their religion. It is the over-analysis of the Constitution and Bill of Rights that get us into trouble.

There is certainly a long religious tradition in US politics. The first congress opened every day with a prayer, and voted to use federal money to establish christian missions to native american indian lands. Just to name two examples. The previous two examples just show how that tradition carries on.

[Hank]

Your guys' arguments is exactly t