Jump to content

Guard Dog

Members
  • Content Count

    628
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    160

Posts posted by Guard Dog

  1. Exactly, they would be dead meat in an election. That said, nobody is cramming God down your throat now. Bush did not (and can not) outlaw Stem Cell research. He simply said the government will not fund or participate in it. That does not stop private firms or even individuals from doing it. Actually I agree with him. Not because I think stem cell research is wrong or immoral, but because I believe the federal government has no business in participating in scientific research. Point that clause out to me!

  2. Newdow were a 2002 Pledge case. 9th district court said that pledge were a violation o' First Amendment. goes to US Supreme, but Court does not decide case on merits, but rather they find that the 9th Circuit had no standing in first place.

    Which was a major cop out IMHO. They decided that since Newdow was not the girls legal guardian he did not have standing to press a suit in her name, which vacated the 9ths decision. It is a battle that needs to be fought and I think the SCOTUS only delayed the inevitable. I'd like to see it decided one way or another. Sand and Calax, you guys realize you are in the minority nationally speaking. If the SCOTUS came down and ruled "God" to be unconstitutional there would be a backlash like this country has never seen. And that will spurr Congress into action. Heck, the day after the 9ths decision to remove the wording the entire assembled Senate met on the steps of the capitol to recite the pledge. Even the democrats who have somewhat hostile to religion for some time now

  3. I am just saying that when a person is in a position of authority that effects millions of people, his or her own morality needs to take a back seat to and do what is right for the good of all people that you are governing over. Not everyone is a Christian. Not everyone is Jewish, or Islamic, or Buddhist either. Not everyone is Protestant or Catholic, or even Atheist. It is the duty of Congress, the President and his or her Administration, and the Judicial Branch to make and enforce laws and policies that need to fair and equal for all people that are governed, regardless if they are the minority or the majority.

    You just cannot do that. All anyone can do is be the person they are. If you are a Christian you cannot stop being that for this one decision, then turn it on again for the next. Everyone in this country knew what kind of man GWB was. Most of those who voted, voted for him. It's no surprise he turned out to be exactly what he presented himself as. It's also no surprise those who did not vote for him don't like it. Clinton was the same way. Not one thing he did, good or bad came as a surprise to anyone who knew about him. What I pointed out before was dead on the money. Evey one is nothing more than the sum total of all of their experiences, education, preferences, and religion.

     

    If you do not like the man, do not vote for him. If he violates the Constitution then he will be checked by the Supreme Court (or actually Congress will since making law is its job). But you cannot fault him for being who he is.

  4. The intentions of officials may produce laws and policies that might encroach the separation which needs to be maintained. Making policies and laws that discriminates a section of the population because the official bases his or her morality on the Bible is not maintaining separation.

     

    That is just not a Constitutional issue then. It is an electoral issue. Don't vote for people who don't adhere to your religion. And try to persuade as many people as you can to see it your way. That is the American way.

     

    Not only do the laws themselves need to be monitor but also the motivations and intentions of our lawmakers.

     

    That sounds a little like "thought police". I don't think you really want that. Ever read 1984?

  5. I don't see how it would be bad for morale. As long as every does their work and gets the job done to the best of their ability why does it matter if the soldier is homosexual or not? It wouldn't bother me one bit. When on duty you do the job.

    I don't know how it was in the Navy, but in the Marine Corps, you are never off duty really. In a rifle platoon, the men in your unit are right there with you when you wake up, you work with them all day, they are right there when you go to sleep. Military protocol is observed 24-7 when you are around them. Everyone conforms to a certain norm or the machine breaks down. Homosexuality is outside of the norm right now. That is changing however and it is becoming more widely accepted. Fifteen years from now it may be totally normal and people will wonder why there was ever a problem with it to begin with. But if history has taught us anything, change MUST be gradual. If you try to force it, society will force back. And as I said, the military is NOT the proper forum for social experimentation.

     

    Respond if you wish but we are wandering OT here.

  6. He makes his decisions based on his religious "moral" values which effects the lives of millions, including those who do not share his religious views. When one makes policy it needs to be unbiased.

     

    GWB is a human and the decisions he makes are colored by his character, education, life experience, and yes religion. If you were in office you would do the same. It is impossible for anyone (you too my friend) to seperate the influence of you are on what you do. Everyone knew who this man was and most people voted for him despite of or because of that.

    Just because he hates gays and thinks them immoral does not mean he should use his power to set up laws and veto bills that promotes discrimination.

    Pure conjecture. You do not and can not know that. And you would be pretty hard pressed to convince me homosexuals are really being "discriminated" against in the same way minorities were . But that is a topic for another thread.

     

    Advocating policies that discriminates a group of people because the Bible says they are morally wrong also has no place in our government or military.

     

    The military is not a petri dish for social experimintation. Clinton tried to make it one and I hated him for it. The military is not like society at large. It must be run in such a way that is best enables it to do it's job. Right or wrong, homosexuality is just not widely accepted in the US. You know me, I think everyone should be left to do as they please and not be bothered for it but in the military that is out the window. Open homosexuality is bad for morale. I realize that says nothing good about us as a people, but it is true. You were in the military, you know I'm right.

  7. additionally, the establishment clause is particularly directed at congress, not the president.

    Congress makes law, not the president.

     

    And Sand, side stepping the whole separation issue here, please point out where Bush has brought religion into the government or vice versa?

     

    Calax, when you throw out the Establishment clause, please do not for get to include the second part of it. If you have forgotten it, it reads: Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

     

    A man named Michael Newdow was so incensed that his daughter had to hear the phrase "under God" in school every morning he actually sued to have it removed. The Supreme Court side stepped the issue and Congress passed the Pledge Protection Act last year making the phrase legal and suit proof. But he is still pursuing it. It seems to many atheists it is not enough to simply be atheist. They cannot stand the fact that there might be religious people somewhere in the world going on about their lives.

  8. Wow.

     

    Crossroads 1 was one of the best episode of the season.

     

    3 of the final five are pretty much revealed.

    Roslin drops an emotional bomb during the trial because Lee is being an a$$ to impress his father.

    Michael Hogan(Tigh) gives his best performance to date on the show.

    A couple of gigantic cliffhangers at the end.

    The previews for next week made my jaw dropped.

     

    And to think almost a year will go by before Season 4 begins! :'(

    It's the music right? Only Tigh and Anders could hear the music.

  9. Call me static, but I liked the ponderousness of our last parliament. Nothing much happened, since it was a standstill between oppositions, but it didn't get any worse. And that's the function of democracy, right?

    I'd have to agree with you here. In the US the best possible scenario is when the two houses of congress are controlled by two different parties. The government can't hurt you when it can't do anything. I doubt anyone anywhere wants to see any one party take a super majority of the seats in any Parliament.

  10. Rebelling for the sake of just rebelling is pointless and more than a little stupid. But if he has any other motive, well, I've never figured it out. As Tale pointed out, he is not an idealist. Having him cross examine the president tonight made no sense. He pulls a gun on Tigh to defend her then attacks her on the stand to save a man he knows is guilty? Plus, the Colonial Fleet is supposed to be a military organization, Lee acts as though he has never had a day of training in his life. A major does not disobey an admiral over such a trivial thing as he did last week. It makes no sense. It's a bummer because they could have done a lot with that character

  11. It occurs to me after watching Crossroads that the character Lee Adama has been pretty poorly written all along. This has nothing to do with the actor. His motivations never make sense to me. He does the wrong thing, takes the wrong side, makes the wrong decision every time. Either he is fundamentally self destructive or the writers just squandered a really potentially good character all along.

  12. Liberals in Finland are for more personal freedom, dismantling the welfare system, reaganist economic policy and 100% secular. They usually get 0,1-1% of the vote. Also, even if parties like KOK and RKP are rightwing, they are no way as right as the democrats of republicans in USA.

     

    Totally opposite. In the US and Canada, Liberals are the biggest champions of welfare and socialism and usually care more about the "social contract" that about individual freedom.

     

    So the RKP is something of a poltical wild card? They do not have the numbers to win enough seats to matter but can tip the balance in one factions favor or another? Also, with so many factions are majority governments rare?

  13. Of course. Plus back in my day, the cool games we had were from the Atari and ColecoVision. These days the games kick ass on great systems and there is no time to play them.

    Heh, me too. I found my old 2600 a few weeks ago. As soon as I make or buy a UHF-RG6 adapter I am so going to hook it up and take a real nostalgia trip. I can still hear the sounds of Asteroids.... Da Dum Da Dum Da Dum

  14. Just curious, is there anything to this other than "what if"? Obsidian has only made two titles and both have been succsesful. Not like they are laying eggs here. But if it happens, I've seen a few of you guys on other forums around the web.

  15. Does the terms "Conservative" and "Liberal" have the same meaning applied in Finlands politics and they do in the US and Canada? Also, since socialist, social democrat and green all amount to the same thing do the three factions pool to form one voting block? Or do they amount to the same thing there?

  16. I think the government should fund projects that would better the lives of its citizenry as a whole. The government is for the people who are governed, not the other way around. The last thing I want is an uncaring, cold government body that does not care if its citizens live or die.

    So you want the federal government reigned in to conform to the limits of the Constitution when it comes to foreign policy and to leave you alone when it comes to matters of privacy (like abortion), but when it comes to social engineering and "helping" it's okay if they go hog wild? You can't have it both ways. Either it conforms to the framework or it does not. I cannot say that I do not trust the government to tell me how to invest for retirement (privatizing social security), then ask the same government I did not trust to provide health care for me.

     

    With respect, you are not asking for a government the cares abut it's citizens, you are asking for one that runs it's citizens lives.

  17. I don't like his stance on some of the issues.

    There is an old saying, "The perfect is the enemy of the good." Hold out for a perfect candidate and you miss out on the good ones.

     

    He agrees with my views on one of your favorite subjects, medical/scinetific research. There should be no avenue of research banned by the government. But the government should not fund research either. It is not the governemnts job to block or aid in any private endeavor which includes stem cell research.

×
×
  • Create New...