Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Unknown Target on May 18, 2005, 09:48:10 pm
-
I'm suprised this hasn't been posted yet.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050518/ap_on_go_co/filibuster_fight
Frist, frustrated by the Democrats' success in blocking Bush nominees, has threatened to call a vote on banning judicial filibusters. If such a move were to succeed, it would give the GOP full control over which nominees could be confirmed for lifetime judgeships since the party controls the White House and has a 55-44-1 majority in the Senate.
The filibuster, a parliamentary stalling device used by legislative minorities, can be overcome only by a majority of 60 votes or more in the 100-member Senate.
Discuss.
-
The Republicans are pissed because they're only 98% in control, so they decide to throw a hissy fit. Big deal. So they're going to overturn two centuries of political tradition. Just another nail in the coffin of US democracy, one of many.
-
That coffin's long been nailed and buried. :blah:
-
Um, I don't have a clue what a filibuster is, and have no reason to want too.
-
If you live in the US, you should. From what I understand, it's the only thing standing between the republicans and total control of the judiciary system.
-
Originally posted by WeatherOp
Um, I don't have a clue what a filibuster is, and have no reason to want too.
Fillibuster being a delaying of voting on an issue, usually by having long winded speaches about nothing.
My Gov't teacher in Fl told us of Orin Hatch (I think)'s reading from his wife's cookbook as a filibuster. Supposedly he did it for three days, or so.
-
Ohh, filibuster=procrastination :lol:
-
the republican congress already has the power to control judiciary, they just want judges in there to legislate more laws from the bench.
All the republicans have to do to avoid a liberal judiciary from blocking its laws, is put somthing in the law that says "the Supreme court or any lower court may not make a decision regarding this law" blah blah or somthing like that and the courts constitutionaly wouldnt be able to touch it.
and from what i understand, this is basicall a move to change the rules back to what they were at the founding which by all means go for it
-
As much as I hate to say it, I'm in favour of the fillibusterring to go on for aother 3 years. :p
No way Bush should be able to put in as many judges as he's able to. He's going to seriously **** this country up (more) for decades.
-
The mere fact that a system allows speeches about irrelevant subjects to affect it proves that said system is flawed.
This is why I believe in actually doing stuff rather than writing reports about it in order to achieve my degree in Computer Science. Unfortunately, it seems that the world is run by Manglement, which would prefer a verbose report to read (and discard) than any actual progress being made, since progress would require a re-evaluation of the situation, which implies the exploitation of neurons.
-
Originally posted by Descenterace
The mere fact that a system allows speeches about irrelevant subjects to affect it proves that said system is flawed.
No... it's not flawed. It's in place to do what it is doing now. To stop a majority-minority from completely controlling every issue, and pushing their agendas totally.
The system was established by very intelligent people. It's just been handed down to complete assclowns.
-
Originally posted by Drew
the republican congress already has the power to control judiciary, they just want judges in there to legislate more laws from the bench.
All the republicans have to do to avoid a liberal judiciary from blocking its laws, is put somthing in the law that says "the Supreme court or any lower court may not make a decision regarding this law" blah blah or somthing like that and the courts constitutionaly wouldnt be able to touch it.
and from what i understand, this is basicall a move to change the rules back to what they were at the founding which by all means go for it
The judges would just ignore the law and declare it unconstitutional, just as the president would ignore a congressional law denying the president veto power. The constitution is the highest law in the land, and any law that contradicts it is null and void. In short, the constitution always wins, even if the law says to ignore the constitution.
-
well you have to look at the practical upshot of all this. In theory, yes, fillibusters are stupid and ought to be done away with. But when you have a single party in control of the Executive and Legislative branch, any move to impose their will on the Judicial branch will reasult in the complete domination by a single party, which is never a good idea.
Originally posted by Raa
My Gov't teacher in Fl told us of Orin Hatch (I think)'s reading from his wife's cookbook as a filibuster. Supposedly he did it for three days, or so.
Was that maybe Strom Thurmond? I know he had one of the longest fillibusters in history, something like 20 hours, to prevent a civil rights bill from passing and keep dem uppity negros in check
-
Originally posted by Rictor
well you have to look at the practical upshot of all this. In theory, yes, fillibusters are stupid and ought to be done away with. But when you have a single party in control of the Executive and Legislative branch, any move to impose their will on the Judicial branch will reasult in the complete domination by a single party, which is never a good idea.
:nod:
Originally posted by Rictor
Was that maybe Strom Thurmond? I know he had one of the longest fillibusters in history, something like 20 hours, to prevent a civil rights bill from passing and keep dem uppity negros in check
Ahh. Yep! That's him! I always get those old 'stards mixedup. But yes. He went on forever with his fillibuster. :nod:
-
Originally posted by Raa
No... it's not flawed. It's in place to do what it is doing now. To stop a majority-minority from completely controlling every issue, and pushing their agendas totally.
The system was established by very intelligent people. It's just been handed down to complete assclowns.
Yup. The fact that it allows assclowns to inherit it is evidence of a flaw.
-
About the filibuster fight I'm all for having the option there for a minority to at least stand a chance. I mean if it didn't exist who knows what nutjobs...... wait scratch that last thought.... I mean look waht nutjobs are already in there, do we really want it to be worse?
This is even from the pc of a Republican:D
and I hope they don't watch these boards often :nervous:
-
I vote that England comes back in and takes over...parliamentary democracy although deeply flawed works so much simpler :)
-
Originally posted by phatosealpha
The judges would just ignore the law and declare it unconstitutional, just as the president would ignore a congressional law denying the president veto power. The constitution is the highest law in the land, and any law that contradicts it is null and void. In short, the constitution always wins, even if the law says to ignore the constitution.
except that power is given to the congress constitution. if the courts insisted on upholding their decision, congress could just write another law declaring that the judiciary overstepped its bounds. and ****, its not like the courts could really do anything about it, if the executive branch and the legislative branch opposed them, its not like they can march and army our or anything
-
Originally posted by IceFire
I vote that England comes back in and takes over...
I vote that we turn Washington in the toilet of the world, and flood them with shiit up to their eyebrows. That would rattle their cage a bit...
;7
-
I just want to move to the moon and watch with sunglasses on as the world goes nuclear on itself.
-
Originally posted by IceFire
I vote that England comes back in and takes over...parliamentary democracy although deeply flawed works so much simpler :)
And a whole lot more efficiently.
I mean, look how often the American system gets itself into a deadlock. Congress wants one thing and the president wants another, so they keep putting the smackdown on each other. It takes them forever to get anything done.
Same with this filabustering technique they love so much. It essentially shuts down that part of their government for hours or even days at a time.
Now, I understand the (entirely appropriate) desire for "checks and balances," but there are better, more effective ways than this to achieve that. Parlimentary democracy has flaws of its own, but it certainly does a vastly superior job of providing checks and balances without the wasted time and deadlocks that can last for years.
-
Originally posted by Swamp_Thing
I vote that we turn Washington in the toilet of the world, and flood them with shiit up to their eyebrows. That would rattle their cage a bit...
;7
funny, i thought it already was :D
i just say nuke everything, it would be the perfect final solution to the human question. burn them alive! :D
*edit* forgot to dscuss the issue
i think the rebublicans of all people should understand the dangers of extreemisim. the conservative way of thinking is if something works, dont **** with it. this is definately ****ing with things. its inconsistant with traditional republican views. if there was a time for a coup in the us governent this would be it. there are plenty of republicans who see that whats ging on is bad for the government.
i dont really see the filibuster as an effective strategy in politics, it just takes time away from important issues. i dont like my tax dollars being used to generate excessive bull**** in my governemt. were not paying theese people to talk about nothing. surely the filibuster isnt the only check/balence that keeps the government stable. id like to see less bull**** in government and more work.
-
The Filibuster has never been used to stop the voting on Judicial candidates. There is no historical precedent for it. It was intended to give minorities the power to stall legislation to try and tip the votes in their favor.
Here's a little tidbit for you:
Bush has only had 55%, or so, of his nominee's given an up or down vote. In contrast Clinton, the previous Bush, and Reagan all had over 90% of their candidates voted on by this time of their term(s) in office.
The reason that the dems(liberals/communists/marxists/red diaper doper babies, ect) are scrambling to prevent these judges from even being looked over is because they are a dying party. Their only real remaining power structure are the activist judges that currently sit on several major courts. If they allow Bush's nominees to take a seat in whatever court they are up for, that power base disintegrates.
-
the reason the conservitives/facists/theocrats/****ing-morons want these juges in is because they have an inborn almost sexual need to controle every aspect of peoples lives, they can't stand the posability that someone could disagree with them because, much like a normal two year old, they are simply mentaly incapable of grasping the concept of two people not agreeing, so they must legislate there beleifes.
if you haven't figured it out that was a sarcastic jab
now, would you pease stop telling me what I beleive, want, or why I am doing something. you have a slim majority for the first time in years just because you have the majority doesn't mean your right. the reason these judges are not being confirmed is simple they are 'activist judges', who once in position will 'legilate from the bench' but because they are conservitive judges, you don't say that, no, you say they "will uphold the law" by interpeting eveything with a conservitive slant.
"...no historical precedent for it..."
wait a second, don't I remember you saying something about how precident is not something that should make any diference when interpeting laws? you know, so that you'd be able to get around that who abortion case without haveing to actualy reverse it.
-
I'm sorry, Ijust read this thing (http://www.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/05/15/kansas.evolution.ap/index.html) and the atempt to arbitraraly redefine something because you disagree with it has me a bit on the warpath right now
-
Liberator, Disciple of Darth Cheney and follower of Cheney's Little Red Book also known as a bible.
-
I mean, look how often the American system gets itself into a deadlock. Congress wants one thing and the president wants another, so they keep putting the smackdown on each other. It takes them forever to get anything done.
The deadlocks are caused when neither side is willing to comprimise. Comprimise is what politics is all about, but the americans seem to have forgotten about that.
People in this country only have 2 parties to choose from (there are others, but put together they only get 2% of the vote in a good year). Most people no longer vote for someone because they actually like that person, but because they have a "D" or an "R" next to their name.
When either party is in control, they just go off and do their own agenda regardless of what the people really want. To cover themselves they weave a wall of deception, and a great many people fall for it. Virtually all politicians lie to some extent everywhere, but in america it is really going way too far.
Is this REALLY a democracy? Hardly. I am proud to say that I am NOT a registered voter.
Bush has only had 55%, or so, of his nominee's given an up or down vote. In contrast Clinton, the previous Bush, and Reagan all had over 90% of their candidates voted on by this time of their term(s) in office.
I'd really like to see where you got those figures from.
dems(liberals/communists/marxists/red diaper doper babies, ect)
More name calling? Is that REALLY all you are capable of? Do you ever wonder why a lot of people here don't seem to like you? Having a political debate is one thing, but name calling is usually only something someone does when that person no longer has any valid points and/or facts to support him/her.
EDIT: Ace, can you please remove that picture? It's disgusting. If you absolutly want to show it to everybody you could just provide a link to it.
-
Something Awful seems to now have an anti-remote linking setup. The original picture was simply a Maoist poster changed to have Cheney as Mao and bibles as the red book.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
The Filibuster has never been used to stop the voting on Judicial candidates. There is no historical precedent for it. It was intended to give minorities the power to stall legislation to try and tip the votes in their favor.
Here's a little tidbit for you:
Bush has only had 55%, or so, of his nominee's given an up or down vote. In contrast Clinton, the previous Bush, and Reagan all had over 90% of their candidates voted on by this time of their term(s) in office.
The reason that the dems(liberals/communists/marxists/red diaper doper babies, ect) are scrambling to prevent these judges from even being looked over is because they are a dying party. Their only real remaining power structure are the activist judges that currently sit on several major courts. If they allow Bush's nominees to take a seat in whatever court they are up for, that power base disintegrates.
So what, you think a single-party system is a good thing?
-
It is if his party is in control.
On a related note: Kosh, that's dumb. Become a registered voter, and vote for someone who you think can make the right choices, even if it is independent and sure to lose. If you don't agree with any of their stances, fine, don't vote, but don't not vote because you don't like what others are doing. That's why we are able to vote - so that we can change our own government.
Related to that note: Become involved. Because of all of this I've already registered at the DNC website (www.dnc.org), and are looking into ways I can help put my country back on the right course. It doesn't take a hero, just someone who cares.
EDIT: And about that; there's a lot of very interesting articles on the DNC website. Yes, it is of course biased, but they link to several news sites that give credible facts to back up the claims. if you're interested at all at what's going on behind the scences, please do read up on everything.
-
On a related note: Kosh, that's dumb. Become a registered voter, and vote for someone who you think can make the right choices, even if it is independent and sure to lose. If you don't agree with any of their stances, fine, don't vote, but don't not vote because you don't like what others are doing. That's why we are able to vote - so that we can change our own government.
You 100% missed the point of my last post. Read through what I said CAREFULLY, then step back and try to think OBJECTIVELY without your personal bias.
We can't really change our government if we don't like either of our choices.
-
Bush=lie. Seriously, my friend thinks that Iraq bombed us...
-
Originally posted by Dark RevenantX
Bush=lie. Seriously, my friend thinks that Iraq bombed us...
Why, does he watch Fox News?
-
Originally posted by Kosh
You 100% missed the point of my last post. Read through what I said CAREFULLY, then step back and try to think OBJECTIVELY without your personal bias.
We can't really change our government if we don't like either of our choices.
How does saying that you should be involved in your own government make me biased?
And if you don't like the two choices, fine, don't vote - like I said. But look into doing all you can to make things right.
EDIT: And that's the last I'm going to say on the subject. I'm not going to drag the thread into a flame war.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
So what, you think a single-party system is a good thing?
That's really the fundamental question. I generally hope that everyone, regardless of political affiliation can see the danger in single-party rule, but sometimes I feel like I'm giving people too much credit.
-
Originally posted by Unknown Target
It is if his party is in control.
On a related note: Kosh, that's dumb. Become a registered voter, and vote for someone who you think can make the right choices, even if it is independent and sure to lose. If you don't agree with any of their stances, fine, don't vote, but don't not vote because you don't like what others are doing. That's why we are able to vote - so that we can change our own government.
Related to that note: Become involved. Because of all of this I've already registered at the DNC website (www.dnc.org), and are looking into ways I can help put my country back on the right course. It doesn't take a hero, just someone who cares.
EDIT: And about that; there's a lot of very interesting articles on the DNC website. Yes, it is of course biased, but they link to several news sites that give credible facts to back up the claims. if you're interested at all at what's going on behind the scences, please do read up on everything.
I have not, nor have I ever held that stance. Do not make this about me.
But I also notice that you accuse my "side" of wanting to legislate our beliefs...you may want to have a little introspection into you're own "side" before casting that accusation about. The most that my "side"(not party, if the Republicans deviate to much, I'll leave) can be accused of is wanting to slow down the degeneration of society and I would like...like...to see a return to a more traditional set of moral values. I'm not talking about Puritanism either, I'm talking about a return to a society where children didn't need to be drugged because they were more intelligent than their peers and the teachers couldn't handle it. I seek a society where right and wrong are clearly defined and people aren't celebrated because they stuck it to the Man. A society where you are a adult not because you've ****ed someone, but because you've stepped up and started to make responsible choices and are willing to deal with the consequences, and not run and hide when they become more than you expected. A society where Politicians didn't buy votes by adding yet another program to an already insanely oversized Federal/State budget.
I'm not so deluded to think that this can happen fully, but if even a but of comes to pass, the world would be better.
-
Oh my God...I'm not even going to reply to that. If I do I might turn this into a flame war. Please, someone else educate this man on the way the world works.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
I have not, nor have I ever held that stance. Do not make this about me.
But I also notice that you accuse my "side" of wanting to legislate our beliefs...you may want to have a little introspection into you're own "side" before casting that accusation about. The most that my "side"(not party, if the Republicans deviate to much, I'll leave) can be accused of is wanting to slow down the degeneration of society and I would like...like...to see a return to a more traditional set of moral values. I'm not talking about Puritanism either, I'm talking about a return to a society where children didn't need to be drugged because they were more intelligent than their peers and the teachers couldn't handle it. I seek a society where right and wrong are clearly defined and people aren't celebrated because they stuck it to the Man. A society where you are a adult not because you've ****ed someone, but because you've stepped up and started to make responsible choices and are willing to deal with the consequences, and not run and hide when they become more than you expected. A society where Politicians didn't buy votes by adding yet another program to an already insanely oversized Federal/State budget.
I'm not so deluded to think that this can happen fully, but if even a but of comes to pass, the world would be better.
A society tailored to your particular ideal of what an 'ideal' society is, you mean. Your definition of right, wrong, values, morals, ethics, etc is not one that everyone will share; any society that is democratic and fair thus needs representation for that alternate view, and a voice.
turning it into an issue of 'right versus wrong' does not make the domination of a single ideology right; especially when the very concept of right and wrong is one that is deeply personal.
As soon as you say 'degeneration' of society, that concerns me; instantly it equates the other side as being wrong, and as such seeks to discredit legitimate dissonance from them. If and how society is degenerating is most definately based upon the beliefs of the Republicans, and indeed any political party will make a judgement upon that as a matter of policy.
It's almost completely subjective; define a responsible choice, and it'll be the choice you think is right, that's all. Same goes for moral values et al. And 'better world'; the thought of one nations leadership (with what; 300m votes max) defining the rest of the world is terrifying - regardless of who that nation or leadership is.
-
Frankly, the filibuster is a stupid idea. Being able to hold up anothers agenda for simple political pandering is stupid. It has been used to hold up such things as Equal Rights Legislation in the 50s and 60s. And can be used by either party for evil and to hold up progress. In addition, this isn't about Judges; this is a show. An act for the base of the democratic party. A waste of time and resources of the senate for 10 judges. In total, the filibuster is one of the myriad of reasons that the senate can't get **** done.
Also, Stupid bush and republicans and dick cheney is the spawn of satan. ok, whatever. People on here think that americans are stupid for voting bush into office. You don't realize that we are damned if we vote for democrats or republicans, because in the end they are all politicians and by definition don't really care about what is right and virtuous. Any person that strictly thinks that one is really better than the other is already, and simply, ****ed in the ass.
-
Yes, please, tell me what is wrong with having some absolutes in morality and personal responsibility. The largest problem facing the world is the fact that some people believe that all minorities, no matter the size or composition of their position, must have a voice.
Now I am not going to say that there should only be one point of view, and I ask you to not pervert my words to indicate otherwise. What I am saying is that a minority should not be given undue credence simply because they happen to attack you're political rivals somehow.
If I absolutely believed that Bush was from Capella-A and that he had it in for Humanity as a species. Half of you would probably change you're opinion of me simply because I had attacked Bush. It's really kind of pathetic.
-
Who´s to say wich morals are right or wrong? Who gets to decide? Why should i be subject and forced into a moral code i do not follow? The issue is not wether one side is right over the other, the issue is one side forcing the other to accept he´s the one who is right.
I'm not talking about Puritanism either, I'm talking about a return to a society where children didn't need to be drugged because they were more intelligent than their peers and the teachers couldn't handle it.
I never heard of such nonsense. No healthy kid gets dopped up just because he´s smarter. You must be thinking of kids who are on Ritalin, or maybe autistic kids. Those kids are not "drugged" because they are smarter, they are treated because they suffer from a disorder, that disturbs both him and his class.
Hyperactivity seen in those kids is a very serious problem. Would you rather not see them get treatment? You realize a kid suffering from that disorder, if not treated, will never EVER pass his grade? He will be stuck in primary school for most of his childhood, for the simple reason that he just can´t concentrate long enough to learn that 2+2 equals 4.
There are some cases, however, of "less inteligent" kids with learning dificulties, that get wrongly diagnosed with that disorder (sorry, can´t remember the english term for it), and some less forgiving parents start feeding their children with massive
doses of Ritalin, hoping that will cure them.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
I have not, nor have I ever held that stance. Do not make this about me.
But I also notice that you accuse my "side" of wanting to legislate our beliefs...you may want to have a little introspection into you're own "side" before casting that accusation about. The most that my "side"(not party, if the Republicans deviate to much, I'll leave) can be accused of is wanting to slow down the degeneration of society and I would like...like...to see a return to a more traditional set of moral values. I'm not talking about Puritanism either, I'm talking about a return to a society where children didn't need to be drugged because they were more intelligent than their peers and the teachers couldn't handle it. I seek a society where right and wrong are clearly defined and people aren't celebrated because they stuck it to the Man. A society where you are a adult not because you've ****ed someone, but because you've stepped up and started to make responsible choices and are willing to deal with the consequences, and not run and hide when they become more than you expected. A society where Politicians didn't buy votes by adding yet another program to an already insanely oversized Federal/State budget.
I'm not so deluded to think that this can happen fully, but if even a but of comes to pass, the world would be better.
Admirable goals, true. But you've got to realize that, however you or me or anyone else might want it, it is nearly impossible to return to anything. The world only spins forward. Or, if t is possible, there has not yet been anyone smart and capable enough to pull it off.
I think the problem, frankly, is that the world-view for which most conservatives are fighting is a mass of different ideas. For example, homosexuality is here to stay. Gay marriage is likely a matter of years, not decades. There's no going back, and it's only a matter of time, a few decades, before it's not only legal, but common, the world over.
Now, honestly in government and an end to pork-barrel spending, these are great things which are quite achievable, and I support anyone's efforts towards that goal. But the thing to realize is that these two ideas, and a lot of others, aren't necessarily connected. There is no return to simpler times, but what is possible is to incorprate some of those ideals into the present day. Social conservativism is on its death bed (in the West anyway, and it's only a matter of time elsewhere), but other forms of conservativism, like fiscal responsibility and personal freedoms, have a strong future, so I guess that it's a matter of picking the battles.
I know I had a point in there somewhere, but damned if I can now figure out what it was.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
Yes, please, tell me what is wrong with having some absolutes in morality and personal responsibility. The largest problem facing the world is the fact that some people believe that all minorities, no matter the size or composition of their position, must have a voice.
Now I am not going to say that there should only be one point of view, and I ask you to not pervert my words to indicate otherwise. What I am saying is that a minority should not be given undue credence simply because they happen to attack you're political rivals somehow.
If I absolutely believed that Bush was from Capella-A and that he had it in for Humanity as a species. Half of you would probably change you're opinion of me simply because I had attacked Bush. It's really kind of pathetic.
Your definition of the absolutes of moral and personal responsibility is more often than not a matter of opinion, though - surely you can see that? I don't believe that any opinion should be given universal precence unless it is shared by all.
Having 'undue' credence does not equate to haveing any credence.
Also, of course all minorities should have a voice; otherwise they don't have the basic human rights that are held by a majority. I'd say the lworst problems in this world stem from people not listening to each other, not from people trying to talk.
Implying that peoples views of this issue are based upon the US political power structure is wrong; to suggest that I or like-minded people would assign credence based on opinion about an individual is absurd. It strikes me that common tact to try and defuse criticism is to imply a personal bias; whilst I may have developed a bias against the current US administration, that stems from vehemently disagreeing with their politics.
I only apply my political opinion to the US because it's the most powerful country in the world, and one which IMO has been going downhill of late to the extent I (honestly) worry about the consequences upon the rest of the world. Topics on the UK, French, etc democratic system and state simply don't crop up that often.
-
Okay, let's define a bit:
# "You shalt not swear falsely"
# "Honor your father and your mother..."
# "You shall not murder"
# "You shall not commit adultery"(I would extend this to include any such loose behavior)
# "You shall not steal"
# "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor"
# "You shall not covet your neighbor's house..."(In our "modern" culture, this is what 4/5s of popular entertainment involves.:sigh: )
I think you'll notice that these are the non-religious commandments...
-
Ok, so you're using your religion to define right and wrong, though you're definitely injecting your own opinion into it (I would extend..., not even explicitly stated in the Bible). But that's still not an adequate universal right and wrong. Trouble is, I don't care if you're removing the commandments involving God, those are still intended for followers of the Judeo-Christian faiths and that's leaving a good half of the world out. Never mind that it's not nearly that simple in terms of US politics; I don't know of any mainstream political party that actually advocates breaking any of those things anyway. And besides, relegating personal behavior (adultry), or even thought (jealousy) have absolutely no place in the legal system, unless you're in a theocracy which the US should absolutely not be.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
Okay, let's define a bit:
1 "You shalt not swear falsely"
2 "Honor your father and your mother..."
3 "You shall not murder"
4 "You shall not commit adultery"(I would extend this to include any such loose behavior)
5 "You shall not steal"
6 "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor"
7 "You shall not covet your neighbor's house..."(In our "modern" culture, this is what 4/5s of popular entertainment involves.:sigh: )
I think you'll notice that these are the non-religious commandments...
Oh, my...
And you think that this can be ackieved by politics?
Lib, you can be an utopist when you want...
1) There's already a law for that... try stating the false in court and you'll see, outside court it's called "fraud"
2) It's up to the parents... educate your kids and they will respect you... educating meaning spending time with them and doing it first hand wherever possible... no law can change it
3) Murder is already regulated... I know where you want to go there but for that it's a personal choice and not an enforcement.
4) How would you stop it from a political perspective? Hmm, maybe the Shariah would fit... But i shudder at the tought and it won't really stop the thing, just make it harder and more attractive to many
5) Isn't it regulated? Or maybe are we talking about corporate welfare?
6) That remembers a country name and a president name to me... Please explain better as it can be interpreted in an undesiderable way...
7) Easy... enforce better privacy laws (note: it requires balls as you would go against the media industry, corps in general and a good share of the PATRIOT act... besides it is quite against the current US government concept of security).
You can get most of it by moving to a small city Lib, people is much more genuine...
-
In case you didn't know, I grew up in a town of less than 1500.
-
Ok, i didn't know Lib...
Can you answer to the rest now?
You're staying in a much better environment than most people and it should be quite closer to your ideals...
Aren't you?
-
I suddenly feel sorry for 1499 people then.
Come on Lib, do you really believe bible style commandments that start off reasonable and then reach fascist proportions are a solid basis for a free and democractic society?
As the man says: only a Sith deals in absolutes.
-
Ok, Liberator. Using your religion as a basis for other people's morality is not only stupid, it's downright unfair. A perfect example of this is gay rights. I know I always come back to this, but it illustrates my points perfectly. Your religion says being gay is bad. Another religion might say it's good. Yet you keep wanting to use your religion to quash what in their religion might be ok.
Now, the most common rebuttle that I usually recieve to this statement, is that many of the US laws seem to be based off of Christian laws, written down in the Bible. While this is true, it's more a case of the Bible and the US law being right at the same time, and not so much thinking "well, the Bible says thou shalt not kill, so we should put that in our laws". It's more the fact that a society simply couldn't function without certain rules, such as laws set to keep people from killing and stealing at will, being in place.
You need to learn that just because people disagree with you, it doesn't necessarily mean they're wrong. Even though what your religion says may be the "absolute truth" to you, you have to learn that it might just be the "absolute truth" for everyone. Once you learn that, people might actually listen to you.
Now, about this whole argument: it's all a bunch of crap. Get back on topic, I will not have this thread be turned into a religion vs. government debate. If it continues, I will request the admins to lock this thread. I'm tired and not in the mood to have a bunch of bull**** or biased and off base opinions come into this thread and drag it off topic, to a predictable locked end. This topic is about the nuclear option, and anything related to it. Not about your stupid religious touting or bashing, and I'm talking to both sides of the argument.
-
It's worth noting that Irans' governmental structure & policies are based upon a series of absolute moral commandments.
What I notice, Lib is that some of your commandments are based on social preferences; adultery, for example. Nasty thing, I don't approve of it, but for the state to legislate against it is surely infriging upon peoples right to privacy? (especially as you talk of 'extending' it). Coveting your neighbours house... what does that even mean? Likewise 'honour they father and mother'; don't speak back to your parents? Is that really something that the government needs to be involved in? Some parents welcome children who hold their own opinions and are willing to disagree, after all.
Of the others... most are pretty obvious; murder, stealing, etc are already illegal; they're things which pretty much every society throughout history has prohibited as a result of their demonstratable harm to individuals.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
That's really the fundamental question. I generally hope that everyone, regardless of political affiliation can see the danger in single-party rule, but sometimes I feel like I'm giving people too much credit.
Ironic that the same people who favour a single party are also the first to complain about it in communist countries isn't it?
Originally posted by Liberator
If I absolutely believed that Bush was from Capella-A and that he had it in for Humanity as a species. Half of you would probably change you're opinion of me simply because I had attacked Bush. It's really kind of pathetic.
Nope. We already think you're insane. Our opinion wouldn't change one iota :p
If you made a serious attack on Bush about his head up his own arse policies then my opinion might change. I might think you're finally starting to wake up like many republicans finally are. Interestingly enough I'm seeing attacks on Bush from people who were former supporters of his.
The fact is that most Republicans are realising that Bush doesn't actually stand for many of the ideals republicans are supposed to stand for (Small federal government for instance).
-
morality could be defined mathmatically/scientifically. a moral action is one that has a direct, more than neutral effect on society, an immoral action is one that has a direct negative effect on society. the reason i say direct is because it is usually beyond human capacity to understand all indirect consequinces of an action. to say somone is wrong because they did something they thought was good (a historical example, prohibition), and have something bad happen because of it (organized crime) is analogus to a which hunt. everyone loves a scapegoat, it allows them to dodge responsibility for things. i dont see why we should blame people for not being able to calculate every possible outcome for an action.
now because society changes, so should morality. fixing absolutes like as in the case of the bible, would conflict to this idea. it is my opinion that truth is not a constant, but rather a variable. it is our responsibility to change with that variable. none the less the 7 commandments (because the others are simply anti-egyptian propaganda and one to promote going to church to listen to a micro-dictator) will usually correlate wih the result of calculating morality anyway. murder theft, adultry (because it can sometimes result in murder), lying (because there are those who believe it and take good action based on it. if you multipy the basis for the action by -1, you should do the same to the result. therefore manipulating somone to do the wrong thing) are very extreme examples of negative effects on society and will tilt the math in favor of the comandments anyway. no doubt moses knew what i knew and thus made the commandments as such (and adding a few to make the jews hate the egyptions, probibly for all the years of slavery they endured). of curse he broke one of them by telling the jews that god said that.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
Here's a little tidbit for you:
Bush has only had 55%, or so, of his nominee's given an up or down vote. In contrast Clinton, the previous Bush, and Reagan all had over 90% of their candidates voted on by this time of their term(s) in office.
Here's a little tidbit for you from today's New York Times (although we all know it's a communist, evil newspaper bent on overthrowing America so take it with a grain of salt)
(that bit was sarcasm)
(http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2005/05/18/opinion/20050519_opchart.gif)