If the election was today

[pagan696]

our 2 (major) party system pits horrible against worse.  losing party tags and affilitions would do our political system good.  most all are overpaid lawyers who really have more intrest in big (read very big) business and not the greater good of the people.

[paynomind]

I, myself, can't vote for a republican candidate because of who they will nominate to the supreme court, and prayer in schools.

so much for "tolerance"

What the hell does that mean? I have a LOT of tollerance. I was saying, I dont want the governement in my life, making my decisions for me, and deciding what my moral code is for me.

I am, above all, pro-choice and pro-separation of church and state.

What in the ever-lovin-piss does that have to do with tollerance?

[JQK]

What the hell does that mean? I have a LOT of tollerance. I was saying, I dont want the governement in my life, making my decisions for me, and deciding what my moral code is for me.

I am, above all, pro-choice and pro-separation of church and state.

So what you are really saying is that the radical leftist judges can set their morality on everyone else, but moderate or, even *gasp* a right wing judge can't?

You have no tolerance, despite what you say. You have tolerance, as long as everyone agrees with your views, that's not tolerance, that's facisim...

[clyon81]

I am, above all, pro-choice and pro-separation of church and state.

What in the ever-lovin-piss does that have to do with tollerance?

I dont really need to respond, because JQK hits it on the head...

The problem in this country is "interpretation". Judges on the left have decided to often read into, the constitution, what is not there, and your proof of that.

Where in any constitution does is say that you can kill an unborn baby? What does it say about seperation of church and state?

It DOES speak of freedom of religion, and rights to bear arms. But you read the same thing, and you act like it says freedom FROM religion, and bear arms means you have no hair on them.  

you might be "pro-seperation", but in doing so, you undermine the foundation of the country, and the unalienable rights granted by the creator. You dont have to believe that, you can, and you do, believe in a government that decided the morality of its people, and once you go down that road, you have no foundation to argue anything you think is right or wrong. Never let the government grant rights. In 1939, Hitler declared Jews no human by law. If the law is the law, it must be right, or wasent it? By taking the creator out of the schools, and society, you are not just getting rid of the church you dispise, but at the same time removing any foundation for "rights" that you think you are entitled to. When the govenment decide what your rights are, they are no longer rights, but priveledges, and can and will be taken away, at any point.

I say your not tolerant, because you dont pray in school, so you dont think anybody else should either.

That is the acting definition of "no tolerance."

[slapshot]

So the church is the reason we have freedom of speech? That's a laugh. The church is the main institution trying to limit or choices in lifestyles and happiness. Everything is a sin, you will go to hell. The church casts judgment on people (isn't that a sin too?). The church says everyone who does not agree with them is a sinner or heathen and will go to hell. I feel we all can have different beliefs and lifestyles...I don't think you're going to hell. I couldn't care less. Do  what you will, don't harm anyone else.

You can't force everyone to accept a moment of prayer in schools or any upblic/government building. You can call a breif pause a moment of silence, but don't tell me it's specifically designated for prayer.

Just because the founding fathers wrote in words dealing with a "creator" doesn't mean you have to accept it. Like the example with Hitler, it the creator is in the Constitution, it must be right and accepted, correct? Morality and theistic beliefs are NOT the same thing. Just because I don't accept the notion of one "creator" does not mean my accepting of a law forbidding murder has no basis in fact.

The wanting of separation of church and state does not undermine the foundation of our government. How would we decide which religion the government has to follow? Where does it stop? Do all women have to wear burkas in public? Can we allow plural marraiges? Why should Christianity or Catholicism have more power than Islam or Hindu or Mormonism? Those religions have differing views from each other. Freedom of religion allows the practice of whatever religion you desire. what about Satanism? That's a religion too. If you start forcing beliefs and practices from one religion, you'll have to do it for the rest, or you have a double standard. Oh wait, that's DISCRIMINATION.

And fascism breeds both ways...both on the right and the left. There is no equal balance..it seems to be one way or the other.

Let's not forget...Hitler was a Christian. his views on the extermination of the Jews started with his religious beliefs (it was definitely a springboard, although the views became greatly corrupted with power). And if you accept one "creator" for all in the Universe, that "creator" is responsible for Hitler as well. How can one belief that is supposed to promote tolerance be responsible for one that tries to hinder it?

[Lee.]

"Once the government approves something, it ceases to be immoral."

 -Reverend Lovejoy, The Simpsons

[paynomind]

What the hell does that mean? I have a LOT of tollerance. I was saying, I dont want the governement in my life, making my decisions for me, and deciding what my moral code is for me.

I am, above all, pro-choice and pro-separation of church and state.

So what you are really saying is that the radical leftist judges can set their morality on everyone else, but moderate or, even *gasp* a right wing judge can't?

You have no tolerance, despite what you say. You have tolerance, as long as everyone agrees with your views, that's not tolerance, that's facisim...

OK..

I do, in fact have tollerance. YOU can do, see, feel, say, anything you want. I expect to be given that same freedom by you. THAT is tollerance.

I don't care left or right, I don't want ANY legislation of morality. As I said on anothe thread, there is no bianary, on/off, yes/no code for what is right, so DON'T put it in the laws of our country.

I do have tollarance. Even to you saying things I don't agree with. I enjoy a healthy discourse on politics, beliefs, and opinion. THAT is tolerance. I WANT to hear what other people think, say, and believe. I WANT to dicuss with them my thoguhts, and learn from theirs. THAT is tollerance.

So, while i respect your right to say otherwise, you are wrong, I do have tollerance. I just dont want my morality decided by politicians and judges. I want to decide what is right for my house, IN my house.

[Ez Street]

i agree with what paynomind is saying. It's not right for Judges and Politicians to dictate THEIR beliefs. Cause we all know Jews, Muslims, Christians and Pegans all have different beliefs. Now that dosen't mean we should have anarchy. I understand the BASE set of morales you need to make society work. Those would be your basic don't kill anyone type stuff. You can have prayers in schools, just don't make everyone pray the same way. In the end it doesn't matter how you handle anything, somebody will always bitch that it's not right. God Bless America!

[NJTank]

How was Jane Fonda a traitor?

She was not only a war protestor in the 1960s but she held a fund raiser for the North Vietnamiese Army.

Which helped kill American Troops.

Its one thing to be aggainst the war its another to help the enemy. She should have been thrown in Levinworth.

[Ez Street]

How was Jane Fonda a traitor?

She was not only a war protestor in the 1960s but she held a fund raiser for the North Vietnamiese Army.

Which helped kill American Troops.

Its one thing to be aggainst the war its another to help the enemy. She should have been thrown in Levinworth.

Jane was a [lady], oh wait she still is. She WAS a triator in my book for helping the enemy. Now i don't hold it against her for being against the war. But once you help the enemy, that is where you cross the line. Hanoi Jane should be up the road from me in Levenworth, Kansas.

**[brackets] denote Mod Edit.

Edited by SyPhi - 2/12/04 - 11:02pm

[NJTank]

Exactly Ez street its one thing to protest its another to help the enemy.

[the_cynic]

Does anyone here have anything against Bush?

[paynomind]

Welcome to the conversation, BS

[JQK]

I love bush. I think bush is great for this country, and if more people liked bush, the world would be a better place...

I also think people should like George W. as well...

(I understand the preceding was a cheap joke... but hey, i'm never above a cheap, classless, crude laugh or two...)  

[yh]

Silly man.  You left out the "C" in Busch.

Head for the mountains.

[gosioux76]

I wouldn't say the newspapers lean all to the left. Boston is lucky enough to have 2 good newspapers with opposing views. The Boston Herald is right/conservative, where the Boston Globe is left/liberal. But the Herald is known for it's tabloid-style headlines, just like the NY Post. Plus, to our north, the Manchester Union-Leader is very right-wing. They have a bible quote on the front page of every edition. The former editor hated Clinton so much (because he was left) that she commandeered the paper many times to say "I want you out of office"...not just something for the editorial page, but the front page headline.

As a professional newspaper reporter, I'd like to note that instances like that are extremely rare. I've worked for several papers -- large and small -- and reporters are never asked to slant stories, with very few exceptions. It's true, sometimes publishers have an agenda and try to force it into the paper -- Manchester, historically, is a great example -- but it's the exception rather than the rule.

Newspapers generally are deemed conservative/liberal based on their editorial voices, somethign expressed solely on editorial pages where opinions belong. Rarely does that seep into the news pages, but again, there are exceptions to everything.

Naturally, i'm sensitive to arguments like this.

[JQK]

Silly man. You left out the "C" in Busch.

Head for the mountains.

< beavis and butthead> huHuhuhUhuhuhHuhUH... you said Head... HuhuHUHuh < /beavis and butthead >

[habsfannova]

The thing with that "liberal bias" card is that it's pulled out by talk-radio hosts and book writers who are dead wrong, and the media calls them on it.  Newsweek reported Rush Limbaugh just sat on his rear, took opiates, and watched football all day.  Thus, he calls it "liberal bias" to avoid the truth from being shown to his gullible listners.

If something is written by a human, it's gonna have bias.  I tend to think it goes both ways, though...

[jkrdevil]

Why do newspapers even have an opinion page?? Just say the facts and let people think of thier own opinion.

[gosioux76]

Why do newspapers even have an opinion page?? Just say the facts and let people think of thier own opinion.

They have opinion pages based on the general idea that intelligent social commentary adds to the overall discussion on a subject. It's up to the reader to discern whether an opinion has merit.

They also provide a forum for public officials, columnists or other so-called experts to weigh in on issues and offer a venue for readers to give feedback.

Readers don't always pick-up newspapers just to read news. They sometimes want someoen to try and make sense of it. They often go to opinion pages for that.