Axiom Home Page Forums General Discussion The Water Cooler OT: politics

Absolutely. 100% agreement here. Your earlier post with the 4 points also spot on.

Unfortunately, it will be impossible to get gov't - and people's expectation of its role in their lives and in society in general - back to where it was before. People want things done for them because they are afraid of failing, they're afraid of trying and/or they're just frickin' lazy.

The human will can overcome almost anything: cutting your arm off with a pocket knife in order to survive, lifting a car off of a loved one, carrying on after the worst tragedies, etc...

But nowadays it's like we're all helpless victims. Nobody is responsible for their own behavior. Nobody is left to solve problems on their own. We think we need welfare, 12 step programs, affirmative action, etc..., but what we really need is the desire to improve our own conditions and the will to make it happen as individuals. All this touchy-feely psycho-babble, and the programs that have come with it, is destroying the will of the individual.

In reply to:

---

From my point of view, marrying 2 men, or 2 women is just as bad as stealing someones's car at gunpoint. Both are equally wrong.

---

Wow. Two people expressing their desire to share their love in a permanent monogamous relationship is just as bad as threatening injury or death to steal another's belongings.

Wow.

I've got nothing else to say to you on that topic.

Seems to me that a religious person would note that about 5% of every population is homosexual - the Eternal One wired them that way. I don't figure it's a matter of choice, but nature - folks are either born one way or the other. If a society decides that the institution of marriage is only for heterosexuals, I can live with that, as long as there is some civilly recognized union which confers to homosexuals all the legal rights that married folks have. Within a few more generations I figure the reasons for the distinction will have faded. Some societies progress, not all at once, but as is implied by the concept of progress, over time. Some societies don't progress.

Isn't it interesting however, that the most liberal folks on this site, the ones most worked up about permitting homosexuals to marry one another, are the same folks who are most understanding of Islamic Jihadists? Anyone see an irony here? I'll help ... Islamic Jihadists would execute homosexuals. Why all the ire directed at our own society which is tolerant and confers legal protection on homosexuals, and so much 'sensitivity' for a culture which would divest you of your favorite parts before killing you?

Craig - I agree with everyone else.....you are basically right in your points. However, I think that there is still something missing there. Yes, the existing system is unfair to many of us. I am one of those that is taxed more than others and probably will not see any social security in my time. But, the difference here is that I am still allowed basic rights and protections in relation to my spouse that 'married' gays are not. Yes, the long-term solution is to roll back and/or modify the existing laws to remove some of the tax-related benefits, etc. However, there will always be some components of the law relating to spousal rights that will remain, such as the not having to testify against spouse thing, etc. This being the case, even if we have changed and removed all of the fiscal benefits associated w/ being married, we will still have a segment of society being denied rights and protections that others enjoy.

Keep something in mind......In the end, it's easy for us to stand here and say that the solution is to modify existing laws and that more laws just exhacerbates the problem.....it's easy for us because we're not the one's being discriminated against.

2X6 - I'm glad you used the word 'most' in your second paragraph. For a second there, I thought you were calling me a liberal. Those would be fighting words. I put away those childish ways.

I am a Republican and I have to say I'm ashamed of my party's stance on this social issue. I'm ashamed in general and I'm ashamed that so many in the party are stupid enough to take the side of an issue they can't win. One day, I hope the moderates like myself will steer the party's future.

I think its quite clear the majority of the US will accept gay civil unions with equal rights: http://pollingreport.com/civil.htm. Last number was 48% for civil unions with 7% unsure.

Michael's words are frightening when realizing that so many other people share his views. Our social norms in Western society included beheading and other brutal methods of execution right up to the 18th century. Just because they were done for thousands of years, doesn't make it right.

Give us what Craig sub proposes AND civil unions.

In reply to:

---

are the same folks who are most understanding of Islamic Jihadists?

---

Now now, 2x6. Advocating that we try to understand their motivations and the context in which such a person can be driven to evil is not the same thing as patting Islamic Jihadists on the back. I think they (meaning the people who are killing or want to kill innocents -- not ALL people in the Islamic culture) are as evil as the next guy. Please don't exaggerate.

I would also like to comment on an aspect of your eariler post about how homosexuals are treated in the Middle East. I'm not sure if it was intentional, but I certainly saw an implication that homosexuals living in the United States should just plain be happy they aren't being tortured or killed. As if that were enough.

Oh, this is NOT GOOD.

What do you get when an Apache helicopter fires rockets at a firebombed Bradley vehicle "to protect Iraqi citizens" from equipment salvageable by the enemy, WHILE said vehicle is surrounded by a crowd of unarmed men and children, WHILE said event is being taped by a reporter working for Al Aribaya (a Reuters affiliate), AND said reporter gets killed on camera?

BTW, the video footage has been shown throughout the Middle East. Do you feel safer now?

Here's another article about it.

PM - As difficult as it may be to understand... when ANYONE decides to get on or into a military vehicle during a battle, these types of incidents will occur. And yes, with the OVERALL effort we are making in combating world terrorism, I feel safer.

If you read the article, the Interim PM of Iraq is STILL pushing for elections in January.

I DO have to say it is a good thing we did not have today's media in 1862.... Picture this "quote" as today's media would have sounded like 142 years ago...

Dateline : April 7th, 1862.

<<< In the past 48 hours during the Battle of Shiloh, in Corinth, Mississippi, there were 23,000 Union soldiers killed in what was supposed to be a quick offensive. Abraham Lincoln, as our Commander in Chief, (and with no actual military experience of his own), sent these 23,000 men to their deaths. He really had no concrete plan to win this battle, and, like other battles before it, casualties have been extreme.

What are we fighting for ? Southern States wanted to keep their slaves, and the Federal government in Washington, DC. takes the indefensible position that these people deserve to be free. Even though polls show 84% of slaves are happy with their current owned status, (As Sam Johnson, slave in Virginia said: "I get three meals a day and master let me have a wife) Lincoln has, to date, sent over 150,000 men to their deaths to fight a war only 51 % of Americans support. What Lincoln fails to understand is these people have NEVER been free, and are not equipped to handle freedom, even if freedom is given to them>>>

I think you're grabbing at straws with your comparison. It's preposterous to compare modern situations to those of 1862. Or perhaps you're trying to say that President Bush will be compared to the likes of Lincoln in 150 years?


First, I agree that it's highly dangerous for people to congregate around a still burning US military vehicle -- I personally would run the other way. However, this was NOT a battle. The people around the vehicle were not responsible for the vehicle being on fire. They were gawkers / bystanders, many of them children.

Such indiscriminate killing is doing nothing to win the hearts and minds of the liberated Iraqis.