If the election was today

[Brian in Boston]

Historically, newspapers have had "editorial opinion" pages because the owners of these papers have wanted to maintain an outlet for the dissemination of their beliefs. They figure that they're paying the bills so they should get an outlet for their opinions. These owners know that trying to insert their biases/beliefs into the news stories would represent a journalistic "no-no", so they created "editorial opinion" pages to serve as their bully pulpit within the pages of the newspaper. In addition, the editorial and opinion pages offer readers with a "breakdown" of the news, rather than just an impartial reporting of it. The editors and columnists on the editorial pages attempt to "interpret" the news for the reader, rather than simply report it.

Later, "opposing editorial" or "Op/Ed" pages were established in an attempt to balance the dissemination of opinions in a newspaper's editorial section. For instance, if a newspaper tends towards a liberal bias in their editorial opinions, they'll balance it out with the offerings of conservative columnists (usually, though not always, syndicated) on the "Op/Ed" page. If the newspaper's bias is conservative, its "Op/Ed" page will be filled with the offerings of some token liberal columnists.

Brian in Boston

[gosioux76]

Well said Brian.

[JQK]

THe good thing about most papers is the OP/Ed pages, which i have yet to contribute to, but have felt the need to more than one.

It lets all voiced be heard, but the fact temains the NY Times, LA Times, Washinton Post and the like, put their own opinions into what are supposed to be Fact-only stories. So in essence, you have one page verses the entire paper... Who's gonna win that one? C'mon...

[Shizznick]

I'm all for letting all the voices be heard. That should apply to all candidates seeking the oval office. We have a 2 party system and not a true democracy. Let all the other political parties get their message out.

I trust the intelligence of the american voter to evaluate the candidates and make an informed choice on election day, apparently Fox, CNN, NBC, CBS & ABC do not have that same confidence. If you can't tell, I'm sick of the Republicans and the Democrats. Congress is good at voting themselves pay raises and retirement plans. Just imagine how quick Social Security would get fixed if they had to pay into it and use it.

[Stampman]

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?

jpslapshot--you have to get over those stereotypes--like all stereotyoes in some cases they are bang on--in others they're not even close.

[JQK]

i think what we have seen on this board is that we have some far leftist, far rightist, and suprisingly few moderates on either side, which is disappointing. Most everyone her won't listen to arguments, they just use it for attacks against others. To get anything accomplished, you must comprimise, it's the way things work. No one seems to want to do that though. Also i've seen for the left, the accusation that those who are moderates are "far right radicals"... which is disturbing to say the least...

Alot of scaryness has been brought up in the two political threads we have here... i am concerned...

[slapshot]

you are not the only one who is concerned, my friend

[winters in buffalo]

I wouldn't be overly concerned about the perceived far-left and far-right attitudes. Any debate tends to polarize people. You won't hear much in terms of a 'moderate' view, mainly beacuse even moderates have issues on which they will take a strong stand.

I consider myself to be moderate on most issues and lean toward conservative on most of the rest. Of course, no one notices when I take a moderate stance.

[winters in buffalo]

President Match

This website allows you to cut through the above BS and decide for yourself whose beliefs match your own.

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

Took it. Looks like I'm a Bush backer.

[CC97]

I dont think its fair that Christians have to sit in public schools, and listen to the teachings of theories and not only are unprovable, but contradict their own personal beliefs.

That's one of the worst things I've ever seen posted here.

If christian students want to learn about the theories of their religion, then they should go to a catholic school where they teach those theories, in addition to the normal sciences/englishes.  Same goes for any other religion out there.

There's no way i would want my child to be brainwashed in a public school about one religion's theories, if i wanted him/her (or more approriately, if s/he wanted) to follow a certain religion, i would send them to the appropriate school, or i would teach him/her myself.

You cannot teach the beliefs of one religion at a public school, if you want to teach religion at a public school, then make it an optional high school course, and teach ALL the religions of the world, and their belief structure EQUALLY.  Then you'll have students, who are old enough to make their own choice, potentially make a choice, and choose it from all the religions out there.  That way it'll be best for them (gasp!  i want people to make their own decisions regarding their own faith, i must be insane!)

Or as a scene from the movie 'Dogma' reads...

Cardinal: "We gotta hook 'em while they're young"

Man: "You mean like the tobacco industry?"

Cardinal: "Oh, if only we had their numbers."

[NJTank]

Yeah but schools ought not teach evolution as fact. It is a theory, and should be pointed out as such.

[habsfannova]

ALL SCIENCE IS THEORY AND IS TAUGHT AS SUCH! DUH!

That's why it's called THEORY OF EVOLUTION and THEORY OF RELATIVITY.

[CC97]

Yeah but schools ought not teach evolution as fact. It is a theory, and should be pointed out as such.

We were always taught it was:

"a theory popular amongst scientists who came to this theory based on studying facts"

Works for me.

[Stampman]

Yeah but schools ought not teach evolution as fact. It is a theory, and should be pointed out as such.

We were always taught it was:

"a theory popular amongst scientists who came to this theory based on studying facts"

Works for me.

But do they teach alternate theories?  Among evolutionists alone there are several theories.  SO what is being taught?

Me I never took biology in school, so I couldn't answer from my own experience.

[winters in buffalo]

The fact that so many old people look like chimps is more than enough proof for me.

[jkrdevil]

How did a question who are you voting for turn into a debat about evolution. Last time I checked evolution wasn't an issue in the presidential race.

Anywy, I took biology last year in High School. Evolution turned out to be the easiest part of the course. My teacher just put in an DVD on Darwin and his thoery. It talked about how Dawin came up with his theory, and what the theory states.

[CC97]

How did a question who are you voting for turn into a debat about evolution. Last time I checked evolution wasn't an issue in the presidential race.

Anywy, I took biology last year in High School. Evolution turned out to be the easiest part of the course. My teacher just put in an DVD on Darwin and his thoery. It talked about how Dawin came up with his theory, and what the theory states.

Which is essentially how I thought every public school taught it  (although we didn't have DVDs when I went to school *old man*)

Back on topic... I took that president matcher thing and I was 100% with Kucinich, I was pretty surprised.

1) Kucinich 100

2) Sharpton 88

3) Dean 76

4) Kerry 75

5) Edwards 73

6) Bush 15

[winters in buffalo]

Back on topic... I took that president matcher thing and I was 100% with Kucinich, I was pretty surprised.

1) Kucinich 100

2) Sharpton 88

3) Dean 76

4) Kerry 75

5) Edwards 73

6) Bush 15

Chris, you're a good man, but I with numbers like that, I'm glad you're not on the ballot... those are the complete opposite of mine.

[CC97]

Back on topic... I took that president matcher thing and I was 100% with Kucinich, I was pretty surprised.

1) Kucinich 100

2) Sharpton 88

3) Dean 76

4) Kerry 75

5) Edwards 73

6) Bush 15

Chris, you're a good man, but I with numbers like that, I'm glad you're not on the ballot... those are the complete opposite of mine.

It seems people are either one way or the other.

I knew I didn't agree with a lot of what Bush said, but I'm surprised I matched up so well with the Dems... I thought I didn't match with either party.

Then again one party just always says the complete opposite of the other party.

[winters in buffalo]

It seems people are either one way or the other.

I knew I didn't agree with a lot of what Bush said, but I'm surprised I matched up so well with the Dems... I thought I didn't match with either party.

Then again one party just always says the complete opposite of the other party.

We'd be far better off with a third major party.