I Voted Democrat

[AllieBaba]

Oh yeah, and I also want a wife. Or a slave. Whichever the government will provide.

There's some jobs even slaves won't do.

Hey, Agna, that's what kids are for, right?

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Fuck you, idiot. Not agreeing with your wonderfully well thought out fascist views does not make people ignorant.

Here you go, idiot. I don't need a link, I'll just post the definition. Now you read over your own posts, slowly, where you state you support the government telling people who are too stupid to handle their own money or lives, and see how this fits:

fas·cism [ fá shìzzəm ] or Fas·cism [ fá shìzzəm ]

noun

Definition:

dictatorial movement: any movement, ideology, or attitude that favors dictatorial government, centralized control of private enterprise, repression of all opposition, and extreme nationalism
fascism definition - Dictionary - MSN Encarta

Fucking idiot.

When have I ever demonstrated that I believe that we should be ruled by a dictator, use repression against opposition, or shown extreme nationalism?

All I said is I don't think most people have the knowledge or education of social, political, geo-political, economic, or financial issues to be trusted to make intelligent and knowledgeable decisions regarding such issues. But since I don't see the difference between rule by the people and our government, I think we should vote to allow the government, with its specialists, to make the policies regarding those issues. And it still won't be perfect. But better than backwards, red neck, dogmatics living far removed from reality proposing and making policy; and better than pot smoking hippies trusting crystals to show them how to vote; and better than privileged wealthy white people whose intentions can't be trusted influencing the ruling bodies of this country.

That's hardly what that dictionary defines as fascism.

 

[Agnapostate]

Hey, Agna, that's what kids are for, right?

I'm sure that's what you believe. Unfortunately, I don't share your viewpoint.

 

[rayboyusmc]

I don't have to read your mind, idiot. You spelled it all out yourself.

No, you read what you want ali. Been there, seen that.

Colorado, don't try to reason with ali, he/she has his/her own logic which is based on hating all thing liberal/progressive.

 

[AllieBaba]

Bullshit. Liberals do want to muzzle religion. Hence the desire to expand "hate speech" to include passages of the bible, and Obama's push to get government officials involved in the churches.

Their desire to eliminate religion is evinced every time some limp wristed parfait lisps about "separation of church and state" as being some sort of LAW that requires that no politician can refer to his or her religion in public, or ever dare to make decisions based upon an abiding faith in that religion. Not only is "separation of church and state" not a law, the purpose of maintaining a separation of church and state was to KEEP THE FUCKING GOVERNMENT OUT OF RELIGION, period. So people COULD WORSHIP WITHOUT FEAR OF REPERCUSSIONS, WITHOUT FEAR OF BEING DISCRIMINATED AGAINST, AND WITHOUT FEAR OF BEING KEPT FROM POLITICAL OFFICE based upon their religion.

The government has absolutely no right to tell us what we can and can't say about our religions. The government has absolutely no right to demand that we not make decisions that are faith based. We have the RIGHT (and we fought a war to win that right) to worship as we please, and to expect protection when it comes to adhering to our religions.

You might as well make your siggy line "I am an idiot" now, to save me the trouble from continually pointing out the obvious, and so we can spare others the bother as well.

Truly - I'm not lying: MOST liberals respect others' religious and spiritual beliefs. I'm an agnostic, I don't believe in a creator but I don't rule out the fact that there just might be one. My belief in a higher power consists of: I don't know. Maybe, maybe not. There is no observational or testable evidence either way. So I'm open to it being either way. But since one can't logically prove there is a God, and its illogical to believe in something because there isn't any evidence that it doesn't exist, I don't believe in a creator. But if Jesus were to appear before me and smack me upside the head and say, "Hey, Idiot. I exist!", well, I'd believe. My point is that I don't like when someone else's religious beliefs are foisted onto me and I have to live by those beliefs or I find that my freedoms or basic human rights are restricted because of those beliefs. I don't mind when those beliefs coincide with rational ethics i.e. don't murder, steal, rape, have sex with my sister, etc. etc. But when its simply a religious reason (like don't use contraceptives or be gay) without reasonable evidence to show that those religious rules make sense in this world or that living differently from those rules causes harm, then I DO mind. And when those rules are put forth as the ONLY righteous rules there can ever possibly be, well, I don't think so.

The reason homosexuals resent religion's influence is that it restricts their rights. Not just too marry, but to enjoy all the same rights and status as every other US citizen. There might not be a law separating church and state but some of the reason(S) that the Constitution and the US came into being is not just to limit the government's influence on religious practices, but to limit religion's influence on government. Either way is repression and the one is theocracy.

In this country you DO have the right to make decisions based upon your faith. But those decisions should be limited to PERSONAL decisions. You shouldn't make decisions for others based on your beliefs. I don't want to make you stop believing in God or reading the Bible or taking your kids to church every Sunday or have an abortion. Why force other people whose beliefs are different (not wrong) from yours live by your beliefs? Liberals would like policy making to be based in reason, logic, and rational thought and that would allow you to worship as you please and for us to worship as we please. Or marry as we please. Or do as we please as long as it doesn't harm others. And we don't want to live in a Christian-governed nation just like you don't want to live in a Islam-governed one. It IS a conspiracy theory to think that liberals want to rid our culture of religion. Most liberals ARE religious. Just not in the traditional sense that conservatives are.

How can you disagree with that? Sounds nice to me!

You find in the consistution where it says we can only refer to our religion for personal decisions. More propaganda spewed by the left in an attempt to use government to control faith.

Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are ENDOWED BY THEIR CREATOR with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pusuit of Happiness."

Gosh, I wonder what our Declaration would look like with no reference to faith, God, or the core religious beliefs of the founding fathers?

"We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the SUPREME JUDGE OF THE WORLD........"

"And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of DIVINE PROVIDENCE, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."

We have a right to use our religion openly and proudly, and to make whatever the fuck decisions we want to while relying on it. You honestly think that someone who is a member of whatever religion must pretend they aren't if they are going to make decisions outside their personal, PRIVATE, lives? What a fucking loon. I assume you also think that anyone who attended Berkeley or Harvard should use what they learned there only when making decisions in their personal lives? Of course you don't. Those are liberal mind control camps! We WANT that shit in government!

Let's see other examples of keeping religion out of politics...or else...

"In summary, then, Jefferson was a deist because he believed in one God, in divine providence, in the divine moral law, and in rewards and punishments after death; but did not believe in supernatural revelation. He was a Christian deist because he saw Christianity as the highest expression of natural religion and Jesus as an incomparably great moral teacher. "

Which explains why the founding fathers wanted God to be included in the Declaration and expected political leaders to rely on their faith to help them govern wisely.

"In 1776 Jefferson also proposed a motto for the United States Seal. His proposal was, "Rebellion to tyrants is Obedience to God."

Interesting.

"For Jefferson, separation of church and state was a necessary reform of the religious "tyranny" whereby a religion received state endorsement, and those not of that religion were denied rights, and even punished."

This includes the tyranny of a state which will not allow the expression of religion publicly, or allow anyone in our governing body to refer to their religion at any time.

" No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.[54]"
That's from his "Bill for Religious Freedom", passed by the Virginia General Assembly.

In an 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, he wrote:

“ Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State.[56]"

“ The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.[57] ”

"Deriving from this statement, Jefferson believed that the Government's relationship with the Church should be indifferent, religion being neither persecuted nor give any special status."

As he stated, in his second inaugural address:

“ I shall need, too, the favor of that Being in whose hands we are, who led our fathers, as Israel of old, from their native land and planted them in a country flowing with all the necessaries and comforts of life; who has covered our infancy with His providence and our riper years with His wisdom and power, and to whose goodness I ask you to join in supplications with me that He will so enlighten the minds of your servants, guide their councils, and prosper their measures that whatsoever they do shall result in your good, and shall secure to you the peace, friendship, and approbation of all nations.[63]

Damn that Jefferson. Apparently he had a limited understanding of separation of church and state, and didn't realize it means that no political figure can EVER refer to their religion, their faith in God, or use their faith when it comes to making decisions.

Thomas Jefferson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Charles_Main]

I'm a Mormon; can I now legally marry my six wives that the fascistic government has been disallowing me from doing?

Clearly if Gays can Marry, Then you should be able to marry 6 wives.

 

[manu1959]

I'm a Mormon; can I now legally marry my six wives that the fascistic government has been disallowing me from doing?

why anyone would want more than one is beyond me.....

 

[tigerbob]

fas·cism [ fá shìzzəm ] or Fas·cism [ fá shìzzəm ]


noun

Definition:

dictatorial movement: any movement, ideology, or attitude that favors dictatorial government, centralized control of private enterprise, repression of all opposition, and extreme nationalism

Repression of all opposition.

GMAFB Ali. When did you ever hear an opposition voice you didn't try to shout down?

 

[auditor0007]

I voted Democrat because I believe that everyone should the right to commit to a relationship with whomever they choose as long as those engaged are consenting adults. So you can't marry your horse. Your reactionary argument isn't rational.

I voted Democrat because I believe oil companies' profits of 4% on a gallon of gas are obscene but the government taxing the same gallon of gas at 15% isn't. And because I don't trust large corporations which do little for the sake of public health or the environment, but I think the government can be influenced by we the people to do a better job of looking out for our interests than a corporation whose only interest is the bottom line.

I voted Democrat because I believe the government will do a better job of spending the money you earn than you would. Not that a Democrat-run government is socialism or even close to it. But I'd rather ignorant people have less control over their country than those actually involved in it. Idealistic? Yes. But so what? Its better than living in a world where there is no hope of a better life.

I voted Democrat because freedom of speech is fine as long as nobody is hurt by it.

I voted Democrat because when we pull out of Iraq I hope that the people of the Middle East whom we've treated so poorly will become more amenable because they now think we'll be more willing to come to a better understanding with them. Thereby reducing the level of anti-Americanism in those cultures. I hope for world peace and think that this country has the best chance of leading, by example, the rest of the world in that direction.

I voted Democrat because you might be too irresponsible to own a gun, and there isn't as much need as you perceive for protection against murderers and thieves. You are far more likely to die in a car accident or from cancer or heart disease. Quit worrying and living in fear.

I voted Democrat because I believe that meteorologists can't tell us if it will rain on Friday but nobel laureate scientists CAN tell us that the polar ice caps might melt away in ten years if you don't stop driving your superfluous SUV which pollutes the air I breathe.

I voted Democrat because I'm not concerned about the slaughter of millions of non-sentient fetuses so long as we don't decide which sentient human beings live and which should die.

I voted Democrat because I believe that business should not be allowed to make profits for themselves at the detriment of society and the environment. They need to be fined or jailed when their business practices harm people directly or indirectly, i.e. through environmental degradation.

I voted Democrat because I believe liberal judges need to rewrite the Constitution every few days to suit some fringe kooks who would never get their agendas past the voters. This doesn't even happen. This argument is ludicrous.

I voted Democrat because I think that there will always be people who don't work, but to keep crime at a low level we should ensure that poverty remains at a low level. And that children of impoverished parents shouldn't have to suffer because their parents won't or don't work.

I voted Democrat because I think that its wrong that the wealthiest 1% percent controls the other 99%.

I voted Democrat because I think that the middling conservative culture of the US is unfair, unjust, ignorant, and unaware of the real threats to human life and civilization.

I voted Democrat because of how well soclialized medicine works and how privatized medicine doesn't.

I voted Democrat because I think that our quality of life is less when the environment is polluted and natural resources are being used up so that some already wealthy people can become even wealthier.

p.s. I'm not a Democrat.

After reading that, I'm glad I didn't vote Democrat.

 

[auditor0007]

I'm a Mormon; can I now legally marry my six wives that the fascistic government has been disallowing me from doing?

why anyone would want more than one is beyond me.....

I always told my late wife she never had to worry about me cheating on her. Trying to satisfy one woman is nearly an impossible task. Two or more is most definitely not possible.

 

[Agnapostate]

Hey, Agna, that's what kids are for, right?

Really, each time I come back to this thread, and each time I read one of your stupid bullshit lies that's in every one of your posts, the more pissed off I get. Why don't you have a look at a little paper I wrote regarding the economic empowerment of youth and their liberation from slavelike conditions?!

Perhaps one of the greatest objections to youth liberation is that regarding parental rights and responsibilities. The argument essentially goes that since parents are financially and legally responsible for many of the consequences of the actions of youth that they have guardianship over, it only follows that they should have control over the rights and actions of their offspring. This objection to youth liberation is a powerful one, but it fails to take into account an essential factor. The reason that youth are not capable of taking care of themselves, the reason that the parental objection of “while you’re under my roof, you’ll obey my rules” even works is because youth suffer from a condition of financial disenfranchisement. They are not permitted to be financially self-sufficient. In fact, financial self-sufficiency among youth is prohibited through a combination of child labor and compulsory schooling laws.

The unfortunate reality is that most older youth, particularly adolescents, are not in a state of natural dependency (as they are biological adults, and it is biologically natural for biological adults to be independent) but in a state of forced dependency. If a man were to lock his son inside the house, and then came home and complained that the son had not gone outside all day, what would we think of such a man? Would we think that he makes a valid point here? It is unlikely that any reasonable person would! We can apply the same standard to the issue of forced dependency and parental complaints about it. (Although we must recognize the fact that most individual parents are not personally responsible for the existence of prohibitive restrictions on youth labor. Hence, their position is roughly equivalent to the mother of the son in the analogy who does not personally participate in locking the son inside the house, but still comes home and complains about the fact that he did not go outside.)

The youth right to economic power is a rather broad topic that will need to be divided into several components. Primarily, we will examine the impact of child labor laws, as well as a brief look at the compulsory schooling laws that they go hand in hand with. (For a fuller analysis of compulsory schooling laws, be sure to see our Education Position Paper.)

An examination of laws forbidding youth to hold property or finances will also be necessary to our analysis.

Primarily, we will analyze the impact of child labor laws as they relate to youth and greater society. Most people are of the opinion that child labor laws (the central restrictive policies, with compulsory schooling laws playing a somewhat secondary role) are necessary for several reasons.

That they protect children and youth from unsafe working conditions. This is far from the truth. In most Western, industrialized countries, inhumane work conditions are no longer the norm, and rarely exist in the formal economy. Workers in the formal economy are now protected through workplace regulation and safety codes. Numerous benefits available through the formal economy, such as healthcare plans, pensions, a minimum wage, and vacation and sick leave also serve to provide humane conditions for workers.

In fact, child labor laws may accomplish the exact opposite of this stated reason for them. By prohibiting youth from working in the formal economy, child labor laws push youth who are desperate to work into the informal economy, which lacks workplace regulations, safety codes, a minimum wage, and other benefits of the formal economy. For instance, instead of working in a retail position, a young person may be forced to undertake arduous and difficult physical labor. (It is technically illegal for persons under 18 to perform difficult manual labor, but this rule is largely ignored in the informal economy. And this law brings up another interesting point. In light of the biological differences between men and women, does it hold that a 17 year old man should be prohibited from working in construction, for instance, but that an 18 year old woman should not, even though the former is likely stronger than the latter?)

More ominously, many youth desperate to escape poor home conditions and parents who exercise their government-given rights to apply corporal punishment to their offspring, may engage in forms of work that are actually illegal, such as selling drugs or prostitution. To evade capture by the authorities under terms of runaway laws, they may sink deep into a criminal underworld, participating in such activities that are necessitated by the prohibitions on them getting a safer, legal job.

Now what of the case of third-world countries that would place children and youth into poor working conditions? (Of course, poor working conditions for youth, as well as for adults, exist in industrialized countries also, but they are more prevalent in developing countries.) Obviously, we are primarily focused on policy change in America, but this is a valid issue that must be addressed. There is no denying that children and youth in many third-world countries are subjected to poor working conditions, but are they really so much worse off than the adult laborers at their side?

Perhaps opponents of child labor can more effectively channel their zeal for humane working conditions in demanding humane working conditions for all third-world workers, rather than just one age group.

Moreover, however well-intentioned anti-child labor activists may be, the consequences of their actions are not as pleasant as they might intend. After the implementation of the Child Labor Deterrence Act in the U.S., which was introduced with the purpose of, “prohibit[ing] the importation of goods produced abroad with child labor and for other purposes...,” about 50,000 Bangladeshi children and youth lost their jobs in the garment industry, according to a UNICEF study. [1] The study goes on to state that the youth were forced into labor positions “more hazardous and exploitative than garment production,” such as “stone-crushing, street hustling, and prostitution.” The study states that boycotts and legislation against child labor are “blunt instruments with long-term consequences, that can actually harm rather than help the children involved.” This study further illustrates the fact that protectionist attempts to “end” child labor may in fact do the exact opposite. We mentioned the fact that child labor laws in the U.S. force youth into more dangerous and unregulated forms of employment, and this further proves our point.

(It is important to note that citation of this study does not imply endorsement or support of the suggested policies stated within. For instance, the analysis states that “UNICEF advocates a comprehensive strategy that supports and develops local initiatives and provides alternatives-notably compulsory primary education of high quality-for liberated children.” Firstly, it is necessary to note that compulsory “education” is a contradiction in terms, as has been pointed out by youth rights theorist Richard Farson. True education comes from free choice, not from coercion. As to compulsory schooling, which is what the UNICEF analysis promotes, it is an unjustly coercive form of indoctrination, as we have covered in our Education position paper. It does not promote the well-being of “liberated children,” as UNICEF claims. It does just the opposite. ASFAR does not endorse or support this recommendation made by UNICEF.)

That they prevent incompetent youth from “getting in over their heads.” Ironically enough, the exact opposite of the stated effect of child labor laws is typically achieved in this instance also. Incompetence and inability is bred through a lack of training and experience, which is promoted by child labor laws. A common complaint among adults and anti-youth bigots is that modern youth are lazy and apathetic. We should return to the father-son analogy in this instance, and ask how youth can honestly be called lazy and apathetic when they are in a state of forced dependency and are prohibited from working. (Or seeking meaningful work, for that matter.)

Lack of economic opportunity and work experience deprives youth of the potential for responsibility and self-management. If anyone wishes to complain about the apathy, laziness, or other similar negative quality of modern youth, they must first consider the lack of opportunity that has been offered them.

Hence, a lack of opportunity for employment experience breeds the very incompetence that child labor laws are intended to prevent, and this is another instance of them achieving the exact opposite of their stated effect. This is a case where the medicine causes the illness.

That youth will leave school en masse if child labor (and by extension, compulsory schooling laws) are abolished. This problem is easily countered by abolishing age limits for school attendance. The majority opinion holds that youth are not competent persons capable of making an informed decision about leaving school and working. Assuming this was true, they could simply return to school later if there were no age limits on school attendance, and continue where they left off. But the fact of the matter is that this so-called “incompetence” and inability to make an informed decision is caused by the very school system intended to safeguard youth from the consequences of their “ignorance.” This is another case of the medicine causing the sickness.

Because a hierarchical, authoritarian environment is not conducive to learning or education, school typically cripples the mental capacities of students who go through its gates rather than expanding them. Attaining work experience outside of school would likely enable youth to make more informed and responsible decisions, as they would be exposed to the realities of labor and “adult life” to a greater degree than the pseudo-intellectual environment of school could ever facilitate. Ultimately, this boils down to the issue of whether one prefers schooling or education.
When re-analyzed, we can see no compelling reason to retain child labor laws, as they are repressive and unnecessary, and every reason to abandon them in favor of a more enlightened standard.

We must next examine the issue of financial freedom for youth, and their right to own property and money, as well as manage their finances free from external restraint. We must again rebut several myths that are woefully prevalent in the minds of the general public in this phase. They are as follows:

That youth will squander or waste money if they are permitted to manage it independently. It is first necessary to recognize the fact that in their current disenfranchised state, youth have very little money. Thus, it’s somewhat pointless to argue that they would bring financial ruin or catastrophe upon themselves by wasting what little money they do have. It would be far more damaging if their parents or guardians were to squander their money, for the greater amount of money that their parents possess is intended to pay for things of greater moral significance, such as food and shelter, than whatever cheap tokens youth are able to afford with the measly few dollars Uncle Sam allows them to have.

But if our campaign to grant youth economic power is to be successful, then this is a legitimate concern that must be addressed. So how would youth be prevented from squandering their money on petty or trivial things? The fundamental necessity is that whatever “prevention” exists will not be one of force or coercion, but one of persuasion or education. Adults are not prevented from spending themselves into financial ruin, because they have been educated to understand the consequences of wasteful spending.

In this matter, we agree with the philosopher John Stuart Mill when he declared that “That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise, or even right. Those are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or persuading him, or entreating him, but not for compelling him, or visiting him with any evil in case he do otherwise."[2]

If youth are educated as to matters of financial prudence from a very young age, they will be able to manage finances to some extent while still young children, and will be fully capable of managing their own finances independently as they enter adolescence. Ultimately, this bar may be pushed back even further, as youth are further liberated.

A Biblical proverb confirms the soundness of our policy: “Train up a child in the way he will go, and when he is old, he will not depart from it.”
-Proverbs 22:6

The fundamental key here is education, not coercion. Instead of being taught that “a penny saved is a penny earned,” young children are commissioned to watch the latest Disney release. There is nothing inherently wrong with recreational activities for young children, but oftentimes, they are infantilized through exposure to primitive elements rather than more advanced elements. This is largely responsible for the very “immaturity” parents and caretakers aim to prevent.
In light of this, we of ASFAR recommend the institution of several policies to combat the disenfranchisement of youth in the American economy.

Repealing child labor laws. This is obviously not to suggest that young toddlers should be in the habit of performing arduous physical labor. This merely recognizes the reality that an arbitrary line in the sand cannot determine the competence of individual workers. Economic liberty will allow youth to take control of their own lives in a responsible and self-sufficient manner. We also call for the elimination of legal restrictions that mandate that older teenagers’ hours be limited or dependent on school attendance. What measly jobs do exist for older youths are typically not sufficient (in terms of wages) to grant them economic liberty precisely because of these restrictions.

Repealing compulsory schooling laws. We elaborate on the need for this further in our Education position paper, but the fundamental reality is that laws that mandate that youth be in school during the day obviously interfere with their ability to hold a job, and thus it is necessary to eliminate such laws.

Eliminating restrictions on youths owning and possessing property and finances. Youth must be permitted to hold bank accounts and other finances if they are to receive true economic liberty. As long as parents and legislators lament the laziness of youth and their financial dependence, we are certain that they will be just as willing to promote the economic liberty of youth, and the ability to own finances and purchase property is an essential component of that economic liberty.

All in all, we intend to promote economic liberty for youth in order to uphold the necessary responsibility that comes with civil rights. Since the ageist establishment frequently points to youths’ financial dependence on their parents and guardians as a fundamental impediment to their liberation, we hope that they will join us in promoting economic liberty for youth and welcome them wholeheartedly in doing so. Through youth’s reception of economic liberty, they will be one step closer towards the more humane, just society promised by liberation.

[1 ]“The State of the World’s Children 1997.” UNICEF-This study can be accessed online at UNICEF State of the World's Children 1997 - Summary.

[2]”On Liberty” John Stuart Mill-(In the name of intellectual and academic honesty, we must acknowledge that Mill did not consider youth to be worthy of self-governance, as he stated several paragraphs later. However, we believe that Mill was mistaken on this issue. He did not take into account the effects of repressive environmental factors as opposed to natural law on the maturity and competence of children and youth. Immediately after, he also claims that libertarian doctrines should not apply to “backward states of society in which the race itself may be considered as its nonage.” Clearly, Mill did not analyze environmental factors to a sufficient extent in his analyses of minority populations.)

What have you written, Babble? What activism on behalf of youth have you been involved in?

 

[editec]

Fuck you, idiot. Not agreeing with your wonderfully well thought out fascist views does not make people ignorant.

Here you go, idiot. I don't need a link, I'll just post the definition. Now you read over your own posts, slowly, where you state you support the government telling people who are too stupid to handle their own money or lives, and see how this fits:

fas·cism [ fá shìzzəm ] or Fas·cism [ fá shìzzəm ]

noun

Definition:

dictatorial movement: any movement, ideology, or attitude that favors dictatorial government, centralized control of private enterprise, repression of all opposition, and extreme nationalism
fascism definition - Dictionary - MSN Encarta

Fucking idiot.

When have I ever demonstrated that I believe that we should be ruled by a dictator, use repression against opposition, or shown extreme nationalism?

All I said is I don't think most people have the knowledge or education of social, political, geo-political, economic, or financial issues to be trusted to make intelligent and knowledgeable decisions regarding such issues. But since I don't see the difference between rule by the people and our government, I think we should vote to allow the government, with its specialists, to make the policies regarding those issues. And it still won't be perfect. But better than backwards, red neck, dogmatics living far removed from reality proposing and making policy; and better than pot smoking hippies trusting crystals to show them how to vote; and better than privileged wealthy white people whose intentions can't be trusted influencing the ruling bodies of this country.

That's hardly what that dictionary defines as fascism.

You prayers have been answered. Since 1789 they've been answered, actually.

You see we do allow the goverment, upon advice of its specialists, to make policies regarding issues.

FYI, the people do not vote on policies.

They elect representatives who vote on policies.

That's why we're a Republic and not a democracy.

You might want to make a note of that for future reference.

Seems to me that most backwards, red neck, dogmatics living far removed from reality, and the pot smoking hippies, and privileged wealthy white people whose intentions can't be trusted, all know that.

Odd that you didn't.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

You prayers have been answered. Since 1789 they've been answered, actually.

You see we do allow the goverment, upon advice of its specialists, to make policies regarding issues.

FYI, the people do not vote on policies.

They elect representatives who vote on policies.

That's why we're a Republic and not a democracy.

You might want to make a note of that for future reference.

Seems to me that most backwards, red neck, dogmatics living far removed from reality, and the pot smoking hippies, and privileged wealthy white people whose intentions can't be trusted, all know that.

Odd that you didn't.

Actually, I did know it and that is what I wrote. You even highlighted it. I think you just hate and criticize all things liberal and progressive...

 

[Coloradomtnman]

You find in the consistution where it says we can only refer to our religion for personal decisions. More propaganda spewed by the left in an attempt to use government to control faith.

Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are ENDOWED BY THEIR CREATOR with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pusuit of Happiness."

Gosh, I wonder what our Declaration would look like with no reference to faith, God, or the core religious beliefs of the founding fathers?

"We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the SUPREME JUDGE OF THE WORLD........"

"And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of DIVINE PROVIDENCE, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."

We have a right to use our religion openly and proudly, and to make whatever the fuck decisions we want to while relying on it. You honestly think that someone who is a member of whatever religion must pretend they aren't if they are going to make decisions outside their personal, PRIVATE, lives? What a fucking loon. I assume you also think that anyone who attended Berkeley or Harvard should use what they learned there only when making decisions in their personal lives? Of course you don't. Those are liberal mind control camps! We WANT that shit in government!

Let's see other examples of keeping religion out of politics...or else...

"In summary, then, Jefferson was a deist because he believed in one God, in divine providence, in the divine moral law, and in rewards and punishments after death; but did not believe in supernatural revelation. He was a Christian deist because he saw Christianity as the highest expression of natural religion and Jesus as an incomparably great moral teacher. "

Which explains why the founding fathers wanted God to be included in the Declaration and expected political leaders to rely on their faith to help them govern wisely.

"In 1776 Jefferson also proposed a motto for the United States Seal. His proposal was, "Rebellion to tyrants is Obedience to God."

Interesting.

"For Jefferson, separation of church and state was a necessary reform of the religious "tyranny" whereby a religion received state endorsement, and those not of that religion were denied rights, and even punished."

This includes the tyranny of a state which will not allow the expression of religion publicly, or allow anyone in our governing body to refer to their religion at any time.

" No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.[54]"
That's from his "Bill for Religious Freedom", passed by the Virginia General Assembly.

In an 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, he wrote:

“ Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State.[56]"

“ The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.[57] ”

"Deriving from this statement, Jefferson believed that the Government's relationship with the Church should be indifferent, religion being neither persecuted nor give any special status."

As he stated, in his second inaugural address:

“ I shall need, too, the favor of that Being in whose hands we are, who led our fathers, as Israel of old, from their native land and planted them in a country flowing with all the necessaries and comforts of life; who has covered our infancy with His providence and our riper years with His wisdom and power, and to whose goodness I ask you to join in supplications with me that He will so enlighten the minds of your servants, guide their councils, and prosper their measures that whatsoever they do shall result in your good, and shall secure to you the peace, friendship, and approbation of all nations.[63]

Damn that Jefferson. Apparently he had a limited understanding of separation of church and state, and didn't realize it means that no political figure can EVER refer to their religion, their faith in God, or use their faith when it comes to making decisions.

Thomas Jefferson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Allie, I agree with everything you've written in this post except that you take it to mean that only those of the Christian faith have all of the same rights. If a US citizen is gay then he/she should have the right to practice their religion as they see fit: which means they should have the right to marry. By not allowing them that right, this country is oppressing them. According to my "religion" its okay to have an abortion. If that right were taken away from me, then I would be oppressed. What if there were an openly aetheist presidential nominee? In this country they would have no hope of being elected because of others' religious beliefs. Although unofficial, that is religious oppression. Or, what if that presidential nominee were Muslim or Hindu? Or Buddhist? "Deriving from this statement, Jefferson believed that the Government's relationship with the Church should be indifferent, religion being neither persecuted nor give any special status." They haven't a chance in hell in leading this nation because of the majority's religious beliefs. Our leaders shouldn't govern using religion to propose rules by which we all have to live but to govern in a way that allows us all to live by our own beliefs. You wrote: "...why the founding fathers wanted God to be included in the Declaration and expected political leaders to rely on their faith to help them govern wisely", using the word wisely, not religiously.

I understand that you wish to believe in God, and that you want to live your life by your beliefs. And I was in Desert Storm to defend those rights for you to live your life by your beliefs. But I also wish to live my life by my beliefs: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are ENDOWED BY THEIR CREATOR with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pusuit of Happiness." The only way we can all get along is to leave those beliefs as personal and not make them official. You don't believe in abortion or gay marriage. No one is forcing you to have an abortion of enter into a homosexual marriage. I believe that consenting adults should have the right to marry eachother no matter their gender and that women have the right to make decisions regarding their lives. Unfortunately consenting adults aren't allowed to marry despite their gender because religious people believe it is wrong, although you quote "nor shall [he] otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities." Fortunately, women in the US do continue to have the right to make decisions regarding their lives, but its under constant threat because religious people believe it is wrong; despite what you wrote, “The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.[57]” you think that people should live by your religion's ways.

That's what I mean by making your religious faith-based decisions for personal matters only: "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God". We should use observable, testable, rational, and proven ways in which to make public policy and leave our personal faith-based ways for our own lives only. That way everyone can live their lives in the way they believe is best and not by the way others believe is best.

"Damn that Jefferson. Apparently he had a limited understanding of separation of church and state, and didn't realize it means that no political figure can EVER refer to their religion, their faith in God, or use their faith when it comes to making decisions."

What seperation of church state means is that when you make your faith into public policy you oppress others whose faith is different from your own. I never said anything about a political figure not referring to their religion or faith, I just think they should leave it out of policy making because it oppresses those who believe differently. You believe whatever you want, just don't make me live by it. What if your religious beliefs are wrong? Can you admit that there is a possibility that they might be? Is that the fundamental issue here? That you hold your faith as the only right way and all others are wrong and therefore its justified that all others should live by the ways of your faith even if it isn't right for them?

 

[Munin]

I voted Democrat because I love the fact that I can now marry whatever I want. I've decided to marry my horse.

I voted Democrat because I believe oil companies' profits of 4% on a gallon of gas are obscene but the government taxing the same gallon of gas at 15% isn't.

I voted Democrat because I believe the government will do a better job of spending the money I earn than I would.

I voted Democrat because freedom of speech is fine as long as nobody is offended by it.

I voted Democrat because when we pull out of Iraq I trust that the bad guys will stop what they're doing because they now think we're good people.

I voted Democrat because I'm way too irresponsible to own a gun, and I know that my local police are all I need to protect me from murderers and thieves.

I voted Democrat because I believe that people who can't tell us if it will rain on Friday can tell us that the polar ice caps will melt away in ten years if I don't start driving a Prius.

I voted Democrat because I'm not concerned about the slaughter of millions of babies so long as we keep all death row inmates alive.

I voted Democrat because I believe that business should not be allowed to make profits for themselves. They need to break even and give the rest away to the government for redistribution as THEY see fit.

I voted Democrat because I believe liberal judges need to rewrite the Constitution every few days to suit some fringe kooks who would never get their agendas past the voters.

I don't think that that is all supported by the democratic party, you may have a wrong image of the democrats.

 

[editec]

Is it safe to acknowledge that neither party's far lunatic fringes actually represent what sane conservative and liberals actually stand for, yet?

Or are we having too much fun insulting each other and creating childish caractures of the opposition to want to stop wasting this nation's precious dwindling supply of ASCII?

 

[Coloradomtnman]

I'm a Mormon; can I now legally marry my six wives that the fascistic government has been disallowing me from doing?

Clearly if Gays can Marry, Then you should be able to marry 6 wives.

Yeah...that's logical

 

[AllieBaba]

fas·cism [ fá shìzzəm ] or Fas·cism [ fá shìzzəm ]


noun

Definition:

dictatorial movement: any movement, ideology, or attitude that favors dictatorial government, centralized control of private enterprise, repression of all opposition, and extreme nationalism

Repression of all opposition.

GMAFB Ali. When did you ever hear an opposition voice you didn't try to shout down?

Complaining is not the same as repressing.

 

[AllieBaba]

religion being neither persecuted [/B]nor give any special status." They haven't a chance in hell in leading this nation because of the majority's religious beliefs. Our leaders shouldn't govern using religion to propose rules by which we all have to live but to govern in a way that allows us all to live by our own beliefs. You wrote: "...why the founding fathers wanted God to be included in the Declaration and expected political leaders to rely on their faith to help them govern wisely", using the word wisely, not religiously.

I understand that you wish to believe in God, and that you want to live your life by your beliefs. And I was in Desert Storm to defend those rights for you to live your life by your beliefs. But I also wish to live my life by my beliefs: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are ENDOWED BY THEIR CREATOR with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pusuit of Happiness." The only way we can all get along is to leave those beliefs as personal and not make them official. You don't believe in abortion or gay marriage. No one is forcing you to have an abortion of enter into a homosexual marriage. I believe that consenting adults should have the right to marry eachother no matter their gender and that women have the right to make decisions regarding their lives. Unfortunately consenting adults aren't allowed to marry despite their gender because religious people believe it is wrong, although you quote "nor shall [he] otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities." Fortunately, women in the US do continue to have the right to make decisions regarding their lives, but its under constant threat because religious people believe it is wrong; despite what you wrote, “The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.[57]” you think that people should live by your religion's ways.

That's what I mean by making your religious faith-based decisions for personal matters only: "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God". We should use observable, testable, rational, and proven ways in which to make public policy and leave our personal faith-based ways for our own lives only. That way everyone can live their lives in the way they believe is best and not by the way others believe is best.

"Damn that Jefferson. Apparently he had a limited understanding of separation of church and state, and didn't realize it means that no political figure can EVER refer to their religion, their faith in God, or use their faith when it comes to making decisions."

What seperation of church state means is that when you make your faith into public policy you oppress others whose faith is different from your own. I never said anything about a political figure not referring to their religion or faith, I just think they should leave it out of policy making because it oppresses those who believe differently. You believe whatever you want, just don't make me live by it. What if your religious beliefs are wrong? Can you admit that there is a possibility that they might be? Is that the fundamental issue here? That you hold your faith as the only right way and all others are wrong and therefore its justified that all others should live by the ways of your faith even if it isn't right for them?

#1, I've never said gays can't be married in any church that will marry them, nor have I ever contested their right to attend church. If the church will accept them. But it is not the job of the government to FORCE churches to behave according to the will of a few in government.
That said, the state has no business legalizing their unions. The people have voted against it again and again. We are a republic by the people, and we don't want the state to be involved in homosexual marriage. The only reason we have state marriage licenses is for taxation and population purposes, and if you had asked me...I would have objected from the beginning to having the state involved in ANY marriage. But refusing to vote for a state-issued (non-religious) marriage certificate for homosexual marriages is in no way a violation of anyone's freedom of religion. It's not a religious document. It is a violation of our freedom of religion for the government to force any church to change doctrine or practice.

#2, Religion has nothing to do with the basic argument that abortion is murder. Murder is not subject to religious interpretation. Murder is murder. Some religions believe in the sacrifice of humans. I guess that means they should be able to practice their religion, because to prevent them is a violation of their freedom of religion. Bullshit. You have your freedoms...until they impede upon the rights of someone else. A baby is someone else. Whatever your religion tells you to do, when it extends to murder, it is subject to the law.

#3, Jefferson believed, as has been amply proven, that there is no freedom from tyranny without God. Period. He believed, with the Baptists, that the government should not be involved in religion not because he thought people shouldn't be able to refer to their belief system when making political decisions (just the opposite) but because he didn't want the GOVERNMENT to PREVENT people from adhering to their religion, and because he didn't want the GOVERNMENT to PUNISH or DENY people opportunity to advance based upon their openly practiced religion.

 

[DiveCon]

I'm a Mormon; can I now legally marry my six wives that the fascistic government has been disallowing me from doing?

Clearly if Gays can Marry, Then you should be able to marry 6 wives.

Yeah...that's logical

actually, it is
the government should get the hell out of all marriage
there should be no difference to government if you are married or not, nor how many you choose to marry
its a religious ceremony and under the first amendment to the constitution the government should not be dictating any of it