Guard Dog

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

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.

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. 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. 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.

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.

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

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.

Well, if it was cancelled why not put us all out of our misery and tell us what it was!

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

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.

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?

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

I'm suprised Master Of Orion did not get any love. It was the one of the first 4X games and the first to do it in a sci fi setting. Plus I drowned many many hours playing it!

I'd love to see the Planescape setting come back. It will never happen but.... *daydreams of revisiting Sigil*

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.

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?

Atr0creep, you are just killing me here. I stay away from the forums over there to avoid spoilers, now you dangle the biggest one in front of me.... I hate you. PM me with a yes or no answer, is Starbuck one of them?

Where did you hear that?

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.

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.

Just read it on RealPolitics.com. Fred Thompson, former Senator, radio host and some time actor is probably getting into the race. Right now he plays the DA on "Law and Order". Here is a man who had a senate voting record that impresses me. He is what I would call a contructionist and he has a reputation of being a straight shooter. He will make an interesting candidate if it is true. Bill Frist and Lindsey Graham are behind him already.

Oh I agree. But they would never win an election. Now everyone asks the candidates "What are you going to do for me?". The Federalist answer is "Cut your taxes and get out of your way so you can take care of yourself." That asnwer will not fly today and more is the pity for it. It started with LBJ and the "Great Society" programs but asking people to take personal reponsability for themselves is not politically correct anymore.

I'll admit, I know very little about Romney, but how do you come to that conclusion?

I believe they foresaw that. That is the reasoning behind the 9th and 10th amendments. If the real federalists like Jefferson and Madison were alive today the would not be in favor of taxing people to pay for Uncle Sam doing things the Constitution does not allow it to do. My opinion only of course.

I guess McCains supporters have a short attention span.

Be careful what you wish for Sand. To quote another great American "The government that is powerful to do anything for you can take everything from you". The government should only operate within the limits placed on by the Constitution.