A World Gone Mad: Rant Here!

[walterIsTheMan]

Deleted cuz I don't feel like having this debate.

The one thing I will post, is that the ocean DOES absorb carbon dioxide, but it also releases it Walter. It's a gas and lighter than water. It's going to return to the atmosphere.

Your claims that judges should interpret the law is wrong but I don't feel like debating it.

As for your claims that social conservatives are being manipulated, well, Walter, that is what's the word for it, incredibly naive and arrogant for you to make such a statement.

Yes, the CO2 is released. But that's the cycle: absorbed than released. So the amount hasn't changed, simply been relocated, and thus not contributing to the increase of CO2. The other point's I've already responded too in my other post.

[spg_1983]

Your claims that judges should interpret the law is wrong but I don't feel like debating it.

Well ladies and gentlemen it is time for another lesson in American Government!

As anyone with a high school education knows there are three branches of government:
-The Legislative: This consists of the Senate and the House of Representatives. It is their job to debate, draft and sign legislation for the purpose of writting laws.

-The Executive: This consists of the President. It is his job to sign bills actually into law and is responsible for enforcement.

-The Judicial: This consists of the courts and the judges. It is their job to interpret laws for each legal situation that arises. Every situation is unique to an extent and it is up to the judges to establish stare decisis for each case using applicable laws. This requires interpretation. There are a myriad of ways laws are interpreted but ultimately that is the judges main responsibility, to interpret laws. If it wasn't to interpret laws then what are they for? Why would we need judges? It would just be a matter of a jury passing verdict yes or no on charges.

This is all basic American Government. Anyone with a high school text book should know.

[kisstian]

That I would agree with, which only emphasizes my point of how Bush is out of control with this issue. At the most it should be a state issue, as declared by the 10th amendment.

The problem with that is, okay you may have ten states that pass a referendum sanctioning gay marriage. Good for them. The rest of the staes would probably ban it but you'll have a judge or a few judges at one level or another that have the power to overrule the will of the people. All they have to do is say, "hey...unconstitutional." That's where an amendment would come in. I definitely say the states should take first crack at it but the courts would intervene at some level. Eventually, someone has to listen to what the majority is saying. Having a referendum in each state would be a pretty good barometer for an amendment though. I'm not saying I want it to have to come to an amendment but the states' rights are too easily overruled these days.

[rarocks24]

The problem with that is, okay you may have ten states that pass a referendum sanctioning gay marriage. Good for them. The rest of the staes would probably ban it but you'll have a judge or a few judges at one level or another that have the power to overrule the will of the people. All they have to do is say, "hey...unconstitutional." That's where an amendment would come in. I definitely say the states should take first crack at it but the courts would intervene at some level. Eventually, someone has to listen to what the majority is saying. Having a referendum in each state would be a pretty good barometer for an amendment though. I'm not saying I want it to have to come to an amendment but the states' rights are too easily overruled these days.

Federalism died a long time ago.

[Ancient 1]

And how many terrorist attacks were succsessfully executed on US soil before 9/11? Im talking about foreign terrorism, not domestic. The first attack on the Towers. Do you honestly believe that when they are ready to hit us again anything Uncle George has done in the past 5 years is going to make any difference at all? When they are ready it will happen again and there is nothing we can do about it. We may stop some of the plots, but these are people that are willing to die, to kill themselves, in the proccess. They are relentless fanatics and can not be stopped. There will always be more where they cam from no matter how many we stop. You can not fight an enemy like this head on. It is not a matter of what security precautions we take or who we kill. The only way to defeat them is by staying true to our beliefs. If we alter our daily lives in anyway in response to their attacks then they win. They have accomplished their goals. The only way to defeat them is to render them impotent by not even believing in them or acknowledging them. When they attack, we rebuild, we heal, but we do not respond, we do not even acknowledge them as a legitimate movement or even existing. This is a war of ideologies and they are winning.

WOW! You want to just hand them the keys to the country right now and stop prolonging the inevitable as you see it? (Of course they don't want the keys unless there's a self-destruct button to go with it). I hope you don't mean to imply that a dead Zarqawi is a bad thing. And I think we would be winning the war of ideaologies if the lamestream media would let us. They are to busy being apologists and blaming the US for everything gone wrong in the world. 10,000 americans died in 24 hours in Normandy. Should we have given up and gone home?
It's been intersting today watching the death of Zarqawi play over the different channels; TV as well as political. I can understand why republicans are happy, but why are the Dems, for the most part, playing this down and using it as another excuse to get the troops home on a set schedule. The military did some more klling today, where's Murtha?

In actuality the internet is the only place where there can be true freedom to express all religious and political views. the annonymity provided by forums such as this means that everyones voice is of equal import. Some multi PhD political and religious scholar has the exact same weight of influence as the high school drop out. If it really bothers you you shouldn't take part in the thread. Just ignore us if we are bothering you and have fun on the forum. Thats the other great thing about the internet. With just a click the page changes and you dont have to see what you dont want to see.

Uh-Oh. We're agreeing on something. It's scary isn't it? Freedom is a good thing until it stomps on the other freedoms of society and other individuals.

As for the "getting mean" comment earlier: I didn't think I got mean. I didn't call anyone names or tell then they were full of **it. In my last response I tried to get back to the original question about the Bush lied/Kids died mentality that was being expressed. Then I backed up my take on the situation with facts while questioning spg's (your) numbers along with the presumption that the UN has any credibility. While I don't expect you to want to borrow my copy of Godless (got it yesterday and won't be lending it out anytime soon), I don't hate anyone for having a different opinion when they can show facts to support their view.

(Well, I've been gone a few days and have some more catching up to do. See any of my next posts)

[Ancient 1]

... its been less then five now since 9/11. in another five if there isnt another attack you can start talking about how effective Bush's actions have been.

That's certainly one barometer to employ, and one that may have some credibility, but there are certainly a lot more dead and caged terrorists today than under any Clinton administration. The more dead and caged terrorists there are, the less likely chances of pulling off another 9/11 scenerio. Is there something wrong with this logic when saying that the war on terrorism, as produced by the Bush administration, has made us safer?

More reading to do...

[Ancient 1]

This is what really bugs me about the right. They don't actually know about science, they just quote anything that supports their agendas. Here's some real science by someone who actually knows what they're talking about. Solar activity is constantly in flux, going through approx. 10 year cycles. Those cycles are nowhere near enough to account for the global change in temperature. The glacial changes on Mars are a result of the planet tilting closer to the sun due to variations in the axis' obliquity. As for the CO2 statement, that is completely ridiculous. Apparently you've never heard of the Carbon Ocean Cycle. The ocean actually absorbes CO2. If it wasn't for the oceans the problem would be even worse.

Where to start...people on both sides of this issue "cherry-pick" their so-called facts. Lawyers call them professional witnesses. To say that the right doesn't know science, is a blanket statement designed to give you the illusion of having a PHD or whatever appropriate document is needed to make the argument, (jk), but you get my point, right? It is said that the Sahara Desert was once a vast forest. Was it billions of mastadons/mammoths running around flatulating all the time that cause this great global change? And while we're at it, back in the 70's these same alarmists were calling for the beginning of another ice age. How did that go? I missed it

I also find irony in the use of complaints from a few scientists. When Democrats presented the arguments of a few generals opposed to the Iraq War, the Republicans kept shouting about how there's thousands of Generals who aren't opposed. Yet the right suddenly has no problem using the minority's opinion on this issue. The vast majority of scientists agree that global warming is a serious issue. The Republicans just don't want to lose the support of their oil and car manufacturing supporters.

If we're in the war just for the oil why are gas prices on the rise? Shouldn't we be getting it cheaper by now?

Never mind the fact that the right's stance on this issue is (Edit:abortion is the issue here) wrong in the first place. First of all, you don't write discrimination into the Constitution. Second, the so-called "activist" judges are doing their jobs: interpreting the law. They realize that the law's role is to protect freedom and therefore any law taking away freedom without just cause is unconstitutional. Third, Republicans keep complaining about judges making the decision instead of the people, yet they want Congress to make the decision instead of the issue. There's hypocrisy at it's best.

If the 'right' is so wrong as you opine, then why do referendoms against gay marrige keep winning by 3 & 4 to 1 ratios? These referendoms, the will of the people I might even say, become law and activist judges ignore it. How is that interpretation? I think the supreme's (Supreme court), should be the ones deciding if laws are unconstitutional, not partisan elected judges with voting agendas possibly behind their decisions. I still can't figure out what demographic, (besides pedophiles), they're standing up for when child molestors go free. Hypocrasy is when Micheal Moore makes a film full of half truths and outright lies blaming Bush, Cheney and his ties to Haliburton for everything wrong with Republicans while at the same time holding stock in the company. The lamestream media never tells about that litle factoid.

...still chugging along but wanting to get back to my book

[spg_1983]

WOW! You want to just hand them the keys to the country right now and stop prolonging the inevitable as you see it? (Of course they don't want the keys unless there's a self-destruct button to go with it). I hope you don't mean to imply that a dead Zarqawi is a bad thing. And I think we would be winning the war of ideaologies if the lamestream media would let us. They are to busy being apologists and blaming the US for everything gone wrong in the world. 10,000 americans died in 24 hours in Normandy. Should we have given up and gone home?
It's been intersting today watching the death of Zarqawi play over the different channels; TV as well as political. I can understand why republicans are happy, but why are the Dems, for the most part, playing this down and using it as another excuse to get the troops home on a set schedule. The military did some more klling today, where's Murtha?

Wow, so you actually consider them a threat to our way of life? See I on the other hand believe we are stronger. We have the moral and ideological high ground. My point was that since 9/11 we have severely compromised and changed our way of life. That means the terrorists win. Period. If we let their attacks change us in any way that means they have actually managed to scare us and made us change. Don't you get it? They are terrified of us! They despise our way of life because it is the antithesis of everything they stand for! They control their people through fear. They know that their people will start to openly resist them and want those same freedoms just by them existing in our society! So they have to make us look just as bad as they are. And that means they have to get us to react to their attacks and compromise our beliefs which we have done. If we were to stand fast in our beliefs, stop their attacks on us when we can, don't let them scare us when they succeed WE WILL STILL WIN! I don't want to "hand them the keys"! I want us to stay AMERICA! I believe in this country! And by letting them scare us into reacting and attacking them back we are weakened in the eyes of the average person in the middle east and we alienate them. We create more enemies! The only way we are ever going to have peace with the muslim world is to become true friends with them. With the people! Not the leaders, or the leaders we put in place! The terrorists would have NOTHING with out the people! But the Arab people will always turn more and more against us as long as we attack and invade their land! If we left well enough alone, stayed out of their yard, the people would put an end to the terrorists and come to us! You say I want to give up america!! How dare you sir! I believe in America and what we stand for more fervently than anyone else here! The difference between people like me and "pretend" patriots is I am willing to die for my beliefs! Im willing to kill for them, but I would die for them before I compromise them. Would you?

[Exiled Master]

Wow, so you actually consider them a threat to our way of life? See I on the other hand believe we are stronger. We have the moral and ideological high ground. My point was that since 9/11 we have severely compromised and changed our way of life. That means the terrorists win. Period. If we let their attacks change us in any way that means they have actually managed to scare us and made us change. Don't you get it? They are terrified of us! They despise our way of life because it is the antithesis of everything they stand for! They control their people through fear. They know that their people will start to openly resist them and want those same freedoms just by them existing in our society! So they have to make us look just as bad as they are. And that means they have to get us to react to their attacks and compromise our beliefs which we have done. If we were to stand fast in our beliefs, stop their attacks on us when we can, don't let them scare us when they succeed WE WILL STILL WIN! I don't want to "hand them the keys"! I want us to stay AMERICA! I believe in this country! And by letting them scare us into reacting and attacking them back we are weakened in the eyes of the average person in the middle east and we alienate them. We create more enemies! The only way we are ever going to have peace with the muslim world is to become true friends with them. With the people! Not the leaders, or the leaders we put in place! The terrorists would have NOTHING with out the people! But the Arab people will always turn more and more against us as long as we attack and invade their land! If we left well enough alone, stayed out of their yard, the people would put an end to the terrorists and come to us! You say I want to give up america!! How dare you sir! I believe in America and what we stand for more fervently than anyone else here! The difference between people like me and "pretend" patriots is I am willing to die for my beliefs! Im willing to kill for them, but I would die for them before I compromise them. Would you?

'Turning the other cheek' in interpersonal interactions is all well and good, but not when there are lives on the line. Applying the same to foreign policy is a sure-fire way to get your @$$ kicked. As for the relationship between Arab populations and terrorists (or Muslim extremists): they don't like them. But they can't alway's get rid of them. I wouldn't trust a guy with bombs strapped around his chest to stop fighting me if I said I would stop fighting him. Suddenly becoming impotent in foriegn policy will not get rid of the hate schools in Saudi Arabia. Making nice with the Muslim world will not get rid of the terrorists: that's why they are extremists.
Now I'm a bit confused. You would lay down your life for uncompromised American values (I think that includes arrogance via superpower-ness), yet you say that military action in Afghanistan was a bad idea.

[walterIsTheMan]

Where to start...people on both sides of this issue "cherry-pick" their so-called facts. Lawyers call them professional witnesses. To say that the right doesn't know science, is a blanket statement designed to give you the illusion of having a PHD or whatever appropriate document is needed to make the argument, (jk), but you get my point, right? It is said that the Sahara Desert was once a vast forest. Was it billions of mastadons/mammoths running around flatulating all the time that cause this great global change? And while we're at it, back in the 70's these same alarmists were calling for the beginning of another ice age. How did that go? I missed it

It is true that both sides take information out of context, but on the issue of global warming, it is the right that does it, not the left. The information I presented is not pulled out of context but is the real explanations as opposed to the bogus nonscience presented by rarocks. I should also point out that our technology is a lot more advanced than it was in the 70s and we are more able to accurately forecast global changes.

If we're in the war just for the oil why are gas prices on the rise? Shouldn't we be getting it cheaper by now?

Wow, talk about cherry-picking. You took the "Iraq war" from my analogy on Republican hypocrisy and the "oil companies" from my explanation as to why the Republican party opposes action on global warming to make a completely off-topic and off base conclusion that I think we went to war over oil prices. Talk about spin, you should work for Fox News. The word "prices" didn't even occur in my entire post.

If the 'right' is so wrong as you opine, then why do referendoms against gay marrige keep winning by 3 & 4 to 1 ratios?

This is the same backwards logic that you've used in the past; that because a majority of people support something or think something is right naturally makes it right. The unfortunate truth is that a majority of people still hold prejudice against homosexuals and that is why the referendums keep passing.

These referendoms, the will of the people I might even say, become law and activist judges ignore it. How is that interpretation?

I don't know exactly what their reasoning is, but I would assume that they are looking at how laws in the past have given rights to the individual as long as those rights are not used to hurt or violate the rights of others. So restricting an individual's rights when they are not hurting others would be a violation of their freedom. Most judges give explanations of their rulings so if you still think they are wrong check online to read judges' rulings and their explanations which may give you more insight into their interpretation methods and perhaps convince you that what they're doing makes sense.

I think the supreme's (Supreme court), should be the ones deciding if laws are unconstitutional, not partisan elected judges with voting agendas possibly behind their decisions.

Well if the Supreme Court alone did it then there definitely would be no gay marriage amendment as the interpretation of the law is clear: the 10th Amendment reserves all rights not expressly given to the federal government by the Constitution to the States. The Constitution does not give the federal government the power to control, define, or in any way structure or interfere with the institution of marriage, and therefore the power to do so resides with the States.

As for the "partisan elected judges", you're probably right that they're partisan and that to some extent they have their own agendas. But you're wrong to imply that the Supreme court is any better. These are individuals hand-picked by the leader of a national party. You can't get any more partisan than that. They may have to go through an extensive process via the Senate, but as long as said party is in control of the Senate than it really doesn't make any difference. At least the local judges are selected by the people and not by national parties.

I still can't figure out what demographic, (besides pedophiles), they're standing up for when child molestors go free.

As I didn't bring up child molesters I'm not sure exactly what your point was here, but I'm sure any child molesters that are released are for good reason. The typical profile for a child molester is someone who has limited social contact and a disturbing life and childhood. They need mental care, not a jail cell.

Hypocrasy is when Micheal Moore makes a film full of half truths and outright lies blaming Bush, Cheney and his ties to Haliburton for everything wrong with Republicans while at the same time holding stock in the company. The lamestream media never tells about that litle factoid.

This is off-topic, but in any case, Michael Moore is a very biased individual that no one takes seriously. And the media definitely beat up on him, so I don't know where you've been.

[uknesvuinng]

'Turning the other cheek' in interpersonal interactions is all well and good, but not when there are lives on the line. Applying the same to foreign policy is a sure-fire way to get your @$$ kicked. As for the relationship between Arab populations and terrorists (or Muslim extremists): they don't like them. But they can't alway's get rid of them. I wouldn't trust a guy with bombs strapped around his chest to stop fighting me if I said I would stop fighting him. Suddenly becoming impotent in foriegn policy will not get rid of the hate schools in Saudi Arabia. Making nice with the Muslim world will not get rid of the terrorists: that's why they are extremists.
Now I'm a bit confused. You would lay down your life for uncompromised American values (I think that includes arrogance via superpower-ness), yet you say that military action in Afghanistan was a bad idea.

Here's terrorism as I see it. "Terrorism" is a tool to encourage a certain action, usually by making other actions not worth the effort. "Terror" isn't an accurate term for what it is intended to inspired. Ideally, terrorists want the enemy to see that they (the terrorists) cannot be stopped, and as long as the particular course of action is continued, the terrorism will continue. Ideally, the enemy gets sick of having to deal with the terrorists and will give up the action in question. A good example would be an occupying army being attacked by patriotic rebels. Ideally, the rebels want the occupying forces to decide that possessing their country isn't worth the effort, and leave.

Now, contrary to popular belief, terrorists do not want to "destroy our way of life." They only care about swaying targeted forces away from a certain action. Despite all of the religious clamour being spouted by the current run of "terrorists", the religion is mostly a tool used by the organizers to obtain followers so that terrorist activities can continue. Ultimately, the goal of the current Middle Eastern terrorists is to keep the States out of Middle East business. If the States weren't an obstacle in the way of their political goals (with possibly religious motivations), it wouldn't be the target of terrorist attacks.

This is why it's important to choose actions wisely when it affects the terrorists goals. Terrorism requires numbers of willing followers. You can't, with abandon, give the terrorist organizers material to use for gaining more followers. Of course, it's important that the States still be involved in some Middle Eastern affairs, especially involving nuclear arms. However, any strategy must be well considered to not provide fuel for terrorists. It is an ideological war, not against the use of terrorism, but the rallying cry of the organizers of these particular terrorist acts. A "democracy (even though we're a republic and create other republics) by force" international policy is a horrible way to deal with these particular terrorists.

Remember, kids, "acts of terror," "war on terror," "defending our way of life," and "bringing democracy" are all terms used for their emotional swaying power. Don't let your emotions blind you to what's actually happening.

[spg_1983]

Now I'm a bit confused. You would lay down your life for uncompromised American values (I think that includes arrogance via superpower-ness), yet you say that military action in Afghanistan was a bad idea.

Any direct military action in the Muslim world is a mistake. Im not against action. Im not a pacifist or even turn the other cheek person. Im saying that our fundemental beliefs are being compromised since 9/11. Just look at the Patriot Act and the whole wire tapping issue. People accept them as neccasary even though it is a fundemental violation of the constitution. We have let the terrorists win already. It doesn't matter what we do now. We can find and kill every single one of them, they still win. And as for the over all war on terror, we can not win the war on terror by our current approach. Its not just the fundementalists that don't want us there. The average Muslim citizen, while having no love for the terroists or specific hate for us, are alienated and emasculated by the presence of every single american soldier there. They are a very prideful people. More so than Americans that don't study the culture understand. It doesn't matter if the terrorists are killing them before we arrive, they would rather die than be rescued by infedel americans. Think of it this way. Assume for a minute that the US was subverted by a dictatorial president. How would any of you feel if a massive Muslim military force invaded our country, removed our entire government, blew the **** out of our country while doing it, and then stayed on as an occupation force while they set up an acceptable government for our country? It wouldn't matter if the former president was killing US citizens left and right just for giggles, everyone would be pissed off! At that is a simplistic analogy because with the Muslim world it is also a matter of religion. This is basic understanding of Muslim culture. Islam 101 if you will. People really need to study the Middle East.

[Ancient 1]

Wow, so you actually consider them a threat to our way of life? See I on the other hand believe we are stronger. We have the moral and ideological high ground.

Yes, and there were 3000 corpses at ground zero who, I am sure, would beg to differ with you. The "idealogical high ground" didn't save them.

My point was that since 9/11 we have severely compromised and changed our way of life. That means the terrorists win. Period. If we let their attacks change us in any way that means they have actually managed to scare us and made us change.

Americans still fly, and do all those terrifying western world things we always do. We still believe in our freedoms and are willing to do what it takes to keep them; well most of us anyway. That is not "change."

Don't you get it?

Is this your new catch phrase? You are always asking me or telling me I don't get it. What's up with that?

They are terrified of us! They despise our way of life because it is the antithesis of everything they stand for! They control their people through fear. They know that their people will start to openly resist them and want those same freedoms just by them existing in our society! So they have to make us look just as bad as they are. And that means they have to get us to react to their attacks and compromise our beliefs which we have done. If we were to stand fast in our beliefs, stop their attacks on us when we can, don't let them scare us when they succeed WE WILL STILL WIN! I don't want to "hand them the keys"! I want us to stay AMERICA! I believe in this country! And by letting them scare us into reacting and attacking them back we are weakened in the eyes of the average person in the middle east and we alienate them. We create more enemies! The only way we are ever going to have peace with the muslim world is to become true friends with them. With the people! Not the leaders, or the leaders we put in place! The terrorists would have NOTHING with out the people! But the Arab people will always turn more and more against us as long as we attack and invade their land! If we left well enough alone, stayed out of their yard, the people would put an end to the terrorists and come to us! You say I want to give up america!! How dare you sir! I believe in America and what we stand for more fervently than anyone else here! The difference between people like me and "pretend" patriots is I am willing to die for my beliefs! Im willing to kill for them, but I would die for them before I compromise them. Would you?

I would prefer to kill our enemies, especially when they keep attacking us, not only here, but around the world. I would not choose to embrace the terror. That logic didn't work for Clinton. As for their people putting an end to the tyranny: Just how many more generations do we sit back and die waiting on this epiphany? They've lived in the stone age since the stone age! I served in the USAF for 6 years. I was stationed at Incirlik AFB in Adana, Turkey. Back then the base didn't even fly an american flag, and my cover papers actually had me listed as being in Torrejone (sp), Spain. While there, I volunteered and went on a TDY to Hahn AFB in Germany and pulled 12 hour shifts for 60 days refueling F-16s. It was the first USAFE base to get these fighters. After that I went to Myrtle Beach AFB. I have proved my willingness to fight or die for my country. Have you?

[Ancient 1]

It is true that both sides take information out of context, but on the issue of global warming, it is the right that does it, not the left. The information I presented is not pulled out of context but is the real explanations as opposed to the bogus nonscience presented by rarocks. I should also point out that our technology is a lot more advanced than it was in the 70s and we are more able to accurately forecast global changes.

Both sides do this cherry picking. You should at least admit to that, or your credibility comes into question. Al Gore has stated time and again that, accorcing to his view, this problem can never be over represented or over stated. "The sky is falling!"

Wow, talk about cherry-picking. You took the "Iraq war" from my analogy on Republican hypocrisy and the "oil companies" from my explanation as to why the Republican party opposes action on global warming to make a completely off-topic and off base conclusion that I think we went to war over oil prices. Talk about spin, you should work for Fox News. The word "prices" didn't even occur in my entire post.

Your last statement about "Support from oil companies and car manufacturers" can only imply that money is involved. Where's the spin?

This is the same backwards logic that you've used in the past; that because a majority of people support something or think something is right naturally makes it right. The unfortunate truth is that a majority of people still hold prejudice against homosexuals and that is why the referendums keep passing.

If backwards logic means that voting counts, and the will of the people is expressed, yea that's me alright.

I don't know exactly what their reasoning is...

This says much...

Well if the Supreme Court alone did it then there definitely would be no gay marriage amendment as the interpretation of the law is clear: the 10th Amendment reserves all rights not expressly given to the federal government by the Constitution to the States. The Constitution does not give the federal government the power to control, define, or in any way structure or interfere with the institution of marriage, and therefore the power to do so resides with the States.

The only problems with giving the power to the states, which it already has and time and time again gay marriage is voted down in every state where the people felt the need to confirm that marriage as an institution is between a man and a woman, is that there is no federal umbrella for gay marriage. Gays & lesbians flock to states where they presume that they can be legally married, and then they expect the state they reside in to recognize the marriage. States rights means they have no obligation to do so, and in fact have had these referendums to say they won't.

As for the "partisan elected judges", you're probably right that they're partisan and that to some extent they have their own agendas. But you're wrong to imply that the Supreme court is any better. These are individuals hand-picked by the leader of a national party. You can't get any more partisan than that. They may have to go through an extensive process via the Senate, but as long as said party is in control of the Senate than it really doesn't make any difference. At least the local judges are selected by the people and not by national parties.

There is a circular argument here just waiting to happen. I don't feel like starting it, so I'm going to agree to disagree.

As I didn't bring up child molesters I'm not sure exactly what your point was here, but I'm sure any child molesters that are released are for good reason. The typical profile for a child molester is someone who has limited social contact and a disturbing life and childhood. They need mental care, not a jail cell.

WOW! What rock have you been hiding under? Child molestors are the most repeat offenders of their crime. Rehab has seldom worked, and I only say seldom because I don't have the stats to say "never." Lots of people have hard lives and limited social contact without going out and molesting children repeatedly. My folks divorced when I was 12 and my parents tried to use me like a chess pawn. When I couldn't put up with it, I became an emancipated youth at 16. I worked my junior & senior years of high school before waiting another year and going into the Air Force. I did not visit lecherous behavior on innocent children because I had a rough childhood. (Sometimes one has to bare his soul to make apoint, I guess). Anyway, my point was that the loony judges tend to occupy the lowest rungs of the judicial ladder. How about therapy while IN jail? that would seem to make the most sense.

This is off-topic, but in any case, Michael Moore is a very biased individual that no one takes seriously. And the media definitely beat up on him, so I don't know where you've been.

I'm betting the lamestream media will be beating up Ann more than Moore was ever brought to task. Every interview I've seen they keep trying to beat her up for the same passage. Does this mean that the rest of what she says is true? She is a politcal satirist, while Moore had the temerity to call his film a documentary...and so did the media! (BTW, I'm only on chapter 3)

[Ancient 1]

Ahh... you and me again.

It doesn't matter what we do now. We can find and kill every single one of them, they still win. And as for the over all war on terror, we can not win the war on terror by our current approach.

I have to disagree here. If we can kill them all and then do so, I believe we would win and The Patriot Act would eventually be repealed along with NSA wire tapping which was not really wire tapping/eavesdropping to begin with.

Its not just the fundementalists that don't want us there. The average Muslim citizen, while having no love for the terroists or specific hate for us, are alienated and emasculated by the presence of every single american soldier there. They are a very prideful people. More so than Americans that don't study the culture understand. It doesn't matter if the terrorists are killing them before we arrive, they would rather die than be rescued by infedel americans.

Then why don't they get off their collective asses and do something about it?

Think of it this way. Assume for a minute that the US was subverted by a dictatorial president. How would any of you feel if a massive Muslim military force invaded our country, removed our entire government, blew the **** out of our country while doing it, and then stayed on as an occupation force while they set up an acceptable government for our country? It wouldn't matter if the former president was killing US citizens left and right just for giggles, everyone would be pissed off! At that is a simplistic analogy because with the Muslim world it is also a matter of religion. This is basic understanding of Muslim culture. Islam 101 if you will. People really need to study the Middle East.

Ahh, the hypothetical. Well this was taken into account by the founding fathers. That's why we originally have the second amendment, and why did the colonists come here? I think religious freedom was a key, if I recall my history lessons.

Well folks, it's been nice chatting, but I gotta get ready for a trip south. I'm taking 3 days off to visit some distant relatives. Keep the lines of communication open inmy absence.