| Let's discuss... |
 Blog For Free! Archives Home 2007 April 2005 February 2005 January 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2003 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September My Links My essay: The Immorality of Marriage The Onion SelectSmart Games to test your logic, faith, morality, and philosophical ideas! Tom Robbins Quotes Funny Name Analysis Bushisms Letters From the Earth by Mark Twain Why I Am Not A Christian by Bertrand Russell Life, Liberty, Logic Wasting My Time RedTigress's Blog Jimmytherighteous's Blog Octo6er's Blog Nivek's Blog Magicjoejoe's Blog Littlemrmahatma's Blog Kurtmaddox's Blog Winstonsmith's Blog Drforbush's Blog Juniperflux's Blog Iron Blog Religion! tBlog My Profile Send tMail My tFriends My Images Sponsored Blog 
|
posted by: newbie (reply) post date: 01.19.04 (6:09 pm) Good blog. I respect your elucidation of opinions. I agree with almost everything, but if one is going to eliminate Affirmative Action (there is no such thing as "equality" of talent ... only potentially "equality" of treatment under the law, for example, in an enlightened society) ... then Affirmative Action Legacy Points for rich brats like Shrub Dubya who only got into Yale (he was rejected from Texas University Law School) due to legacy points from Poppy should ALSO BE ELIMINATED. Yale should not accept mediocre drunkards like Shrub: it perpetuates the elite half-wits with money that their families swindled out of the poor and working people ... Yale confirmed that Shrub only got in based upon Affirmative Action aka Legacy Points! Moreover, I suspect his Skull-and-Bones frat boys took his tests while he was in a drunken stupor given that multiple sources have reported Dubya knows nothing about history, doesn't read, can hardly read (as we see from his stumble-bumble thru his idiotic screeds). Thanks ... posted by: newbie (reply) post date: 01.19.04 (6:15 pm) You are able to articulate your views clearly. Contrast that with Bush's lack of real principles (except for his pandering to corporate interests) written by Patrick J. Buchanan (a conservative with whom I disagree, but has the brains to observe ...) well you read this on http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36665 :) Take care. posted by: jimdoney (reply) post date: 01.19.04 (8:51 pm) Legacy Points are in the process of being eliminated at all the major Universities I know of. This is because of the scrutiny over U. of Michigan's aff. action case. As to the issue of gay marriage you state that the government should not be involved. The thing is the government is involved in straight peoples marriages through taxes and such so how would you have the gov. not be involved in the gay marriage? If you do not want them involved what is wrong with how it stands now where they are able to do whatever they want behind closed doors? (EG SC case over sodomy laws) posted by: DragonBait22 (reply) post date: 01.19.04 (8:56 pm) Reply to: jimdoney "The thing is the government is involved in straight peoples marriages..." Yeah, I don't think the government should be involved in marriage, period. Marriage, heterosexual or otherwise, should receive no benefits from the government. They should be able to do whatever they want behind closed doors- that is precisely my point. Marriage, love, sex, are all private matters that the government should not intervene in. posted by: DragonBait22 (reply) post date: 01.19.04 (8:57 pm) Hey, feel free to comment on my positions to these issues, but I also want to know where you stand on these issues, not just how you stand in contrast to my views. :) posted by: jimdoney (reply) post date: 01.19.04 (9:02 pm) Reply to: DragonBait22 Thats all I wanted to know. Well that and how you would possibly put the governmental genie so to speak back in the bottle and out of these issues like marriage abortion etc... posted by: DragonBait22 (reply) post date: 01.20.04 (9:36 am) Reply to: jimdoney So you're saying that you agree that the government should not be involved, but since it already is, the best thing to do would be to give it more power? I don't see that as a logical solution. You are correct in stating that the fact that the government has already been given some authority regarding abortion or marriage is a problem. However, I think the best solution would be to simply remove those powers, not supply more. In terms of benefits for married couples, if everyone had the same benefits or lack of benefits, there would not be a problem. Why should a married couple receive benefits anyway? There are a lot of problems (aside from these) I see with our government regarding how much power and authority it has over the individual. I think individual rights and liberty should be the focus, not governmental control. posted by: jimdoney (reply) post date: 01.20.04 (10:09 am) Reply to: DragonBait22 Honestly I was not taking a side or opinion at all. I was simply interested in how you would go about removing the Government from the personal lives of the constituates he serves. The option of removal of the beurocracy that already exists is not a viable option in my opinion and how one would go about pulling it out of the personal sector so to speak would be more costly and more of a problem than the problems you are trying to fix by its removal in the first place. What about other issues of personal lives that the government is involved in? The death tax, social security, and personal donations to campaigns are all examples of personal issues in which the government is involved. Why should the gov. determine where my money goes before I even get to touch it? WHy should the government determine how much I can give to my candidate in an election? Why should the government force me to contribute to a retirement plan that I dont need nor want at the age of 23? The fact is the interweaving of personal lives and personal choices with governemnt in this country are all around us. As a matter of fact I may even say that it is this that gives a social conciousness and a civic commitment. How then do you split this two? This is the same problem I have with the idea of seperation of church and state. How do you seperate the two things when one was built on the other and those who are involved in the latter have beliefs and faith in the first? posted by: DragonBait22 (reply) post date: 01.20.04 (1:51 pm) Reply to: jimdoney The separation of church and state doesn't mean that there is a separation between what one may believe in terms of religion and how one may participate in government- it means that the government may not support or enforce any particular religious beliefs. Your questions about why the government should be involved in private matters are precisely my point- the government shouldn't be involved. As to how it would be possible or viable to remove these powers of the government, I think that if the government was limited to protecting individual rights and securing the nation, the cost of running the government would be drastically lowered, resulting in major tax cuts giving the people more responsibility to do with the money they earn as they see fit, not as the government does. Programs currently under the control of the government such as Social Security and Welfare would be better managed if privatized. I don't think it's fair for everyone to have money taken away from them to provide for others; there should at least be the option of not participating in programs such as Social Security. As for your comment on this interweaving of our personal lives and government being what gives us a sense of social conscious and civic commitment, I think that this is somewhat true, but it isn't dependent on this relationship. We can have a social conscious and civic commitment without having a government that controls our private lives (or any portion of our private lives). As Aristotle stated, we are social animals by nature. This includes a certain spirit of compassion and caring towards others. posted by: Nivek (reply) post date: 01.24.04 (2:00 pm) D. Of course, the opinions I have are only basic outlines, and especially with issues like abortion, so, so much more needs to be discussed... Abortion: It must be kept legal in the context of our Constitution and individual rights. The main question and concern of many is: "When does life begin"? I believe that life begins at birth; that growing human cells are the same in embryo and fingernails, skin, and hair, and, etc.. Though common sense, and any objective reasonable aspect, would dictate that Partial Birth Abortion, with rational morality, is wrong. But the government can't say: "You can only have an abortion in the first trimester, or second, or third", or whatever they choose. They HAVE NO CHOICE IN WHAT YOU DO. Now, if people thought rationally, they would take precautions so as not to cause an unwanted pregnancy--with BOTH man and woman in the act of sexual intercourse. There will always be mistakes in judgement, and that wonderful romantic desire in the heat of the moment, and not to mention rape and incest...in that context, we can never have controls. Raising a child is the hardest and most demanding of all, and it's a life long demand. So, if a young couple, with no money and no real place to live on their own, and can barely support themselves--never mind a child, make a misjudgement and conceive an embryo, then what would the rest of their lives be like with a child and no money, without the choice of abotion?...the choice should be up to them, or specifically--the woman. Where emotion (romantic desire) takes the place of rational judgement (protecting against an unwanted pregnancy), there will be consequences to deal with, and no one--no government or religion, can ever have ANY say in the choices that an individual, or two individuals in love, make for their own welfare and happiness of today and of their future. In basic terms: the freedom to think and to act are rights granted to everyone--not only by our Constitution--but by our inherent right as an individual to exist for our own sake, in our pursuit of what we decide is right for ourselves and our ultimate goal of happiness... Next, Death Penalty... N posted by: Nivek (reply) post date: 01.26.04 (9:43 pm) On the Death Penalty... Indeed our Constitution grants the right of life to everyone, the only caveat is that if someone infringes upon anothers rights--or in the case of murder, takes away another persons right to life--the murderer may lose the rights granted to him. Of course, we need a justice system that is objective and rational--weighing all the evidence and facts towards an honest and logical conclusion. Seeing that that is not the case, mistakes are often made. And if one is put to death mistakenly, then it IS an atrocity. Say a serial killer kills 20 women; he tried to kill 22, but 2 of them lived and testify that it was that man who did it, and 2 off-duty police officers caught him in the act of the last murder. An odd situation, but is any killer--with ample proof and evidence--worth more than his crime? Of course not, though he did forfeit his rights by taking away the rights of others, and punishment must be served. But the death penalty doesn't solve anything or bring back someone who was killed. Nor is our justice system uncorrupted or rationally objective. That in mind, and the archaic nature of the death penalty, it should be past into history. |
|