Sand

Should soliders be accountable for the orders they follow, meta? Yes or no. Yes, he joined the Army after Iraq, but at the time the truth about the falsified intelligence reports were not known. If he knew the reports were false do you think he would have still joined? I don't think so. He joined on false pretenses set by the Bush administration.

I think the scariest thing I had to deal with was when I was 12 and I ended up climbing about 40 feet in a tree. I looked down, got a bit of vertigo, and well fell straight down in hard earth. Heights are not something I like a whole lot. As for games and media, I don't get frighten by those. In the back of my mind I know there is always an off swtich.

Its the US, land of the hipocrisy. It fits in quite well.

Agreed.

Since this thread was originally about a man refusing to go to Iraq because he believes that the invasion was based off on false data, thusly illegal, I thought to steer it back to it, Meta. Sorry for being on topic. Next time I will do my best to derail every thread I participate in about subjects that pertain nothing to the topic of the thread.

I never had Skie in my party. I never did find her. Then again, I never looked either.

Blarg? :confused:

What? Not Samual Addams? That's unpatriotic!

Mind that tank! What tank? *splat*

The question is here, why should the majority cater to the needs of the minority when the minority wants to put lives in jeopardy for no good reason than to achieve a nonsensical goal that has no real merit?

Man, why can't people do a search. Listen up. Months ago, practically a whole year ago, LucasArts was going to make KotOR3 in house but then cancelled it and fired the staff. KotOR3 has been started and cancelled. That is why there hasn't been any new news. Its a cancelled game.

Separation of church and state means that church and state are to be separated in all things to a point that it doesn't impose on the other. Such as the government has the duty to make sure all citizens are equal under secular law, but individual churches and church organizations can be discriminating if they so will. It means the government will not give funds or assets to churches or church organizations while at the same time not impose taxes on them as well. The church will not seek to influence laws and policies of the government that seeks to put them in favor or discriminate those who do not follow said church. Basically, keep religion in the churchs and out of the state house and areas controlled by the state while at the same time keep the state out of the churches' affairs and their individual policies. For example, The Boy Scouts of America is an organization that is closely affiliated with churches in their respective communities. Within their own private organization they can discriminate against those who do not fit their standards. However by doing so, and imposing their religious beliefs that effects their policies the state is obligated not to support them with additional funds nor provide free services for that organization.

I am talking about the specific United States Government. With the checks and balances that we already have in place due to our subdivisions the tyrrany of the majority is not an issue.

I fully agree with Kaftan that separation of church and state needs to be maintained for this is suppose to be a democracy, not a theocracy. So a candidate that can lead this country, without his or her religious bias, if any, with a rational scular mind would probably be more fair minded than say one that imposes his or her religious beliefs to binding laws and policies.

Makes good sense to me.

How would changing the election process for the executive branch effect the legislative branch, which is already majority ruled, in such a way that they would seek to radically alter the Constitution? No state has more than 2 senators and the House is already based on population of the state in question.

I had celerity maxed out with a melee specialist. OH MY GAWD! It was messed in the head.

How would the tyranny of the majority effect the presidency when it doesn't seem to effect all the other federal and state level government offices?

The needs of the man otweigh the needs of the few. That is how a democracy should work. Equal rights need to be assured for all, yes, and there needs to be laws in place that makes sure of it but the minority should not have more power than the majority simply because they just happen to be the minority. Do you rather that a few people have the power or have everyone with an equal share and work toward concensus? If every vote mattered in a popular election for the presidency and the electorial college is eliminated I believe there would be a lot more people voting and a lot less apathy.

So the majority must cater to the whims of the minority? How is that right?

How does it start it?

Um no. There are Christians who I have voted for in the past. I might not agreed with all their views but enough of them that they were acceptable. As I said, I look at the issues that I am concerned with: Equal rights Immigration Education Use of our Military Scientific Research Healthcare The candidate I can agree with the most, regardless of religion, gets my vote.

Discrimination is not what I am advocating so no. Everyone has the same and equal rights under the law.

That is just one issue. There are a myriad of issues and I would probably end up voting the one, at least the non-presidential elections since my vote matters in those, who matches the closest to my views.