posted
Christine: What CT said. Also, it's a case in which I honestly don't find any solid argument against it other than religious ones. I believe that U.S. law shouldn't be made based solely on religious tenets, and so I really have a problem with that aspect of attempts to ban SSM.
Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
In my opinion terrorism is a symptom. We can't eliminate terrorism without addressing the root causes.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Megan: Christine: What CT said. Also, it's a case in which I honestly don't find any solid argument against it other than religious ones. I believe that U.S. law shouldn't be made based solely on religious tenets, and so I really have a problem with that aspect of attempts to ban SSM.
Yeah, I'm with you two. I was really hoping to get an explanation from those on the other side. Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: But saying that those who disagree with you are not completely rational is just bad form.
Even if it is bad form, I still stand by it. If I thought eliminating abortion is more important than eliminating terrorism it would be probably be for religious or moral reasons. Not for logical reasons. Rationally, I think eliminating terrorism is more important.
quote: In my opinion terrorism is a symptom. We can't eliminate terrorism without addressing the root causes.
If terrorism is a symptom, then terrorists are the cause.
Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd be very interested in hearing what programs people think would be effective in eliminating terrorism -- that is, if anyone actually believes that eliminating terrorism is possible.
I lean toward the "deal with the root causes" idea, but I realize that there isn't a lot of data to back up my belief that it's a long-term more effective strategy than the more reactive mode of attempting to kill every person who joins a terror organization.
Ultimately, maybe a mixture of strategies is the way to go? One in which we relentlessly track down the people who actively engage in terrorist actions, while at the same time trying to reduce the incentives for people to take that route in the first place.
And at that, I'd expect what we're really going to achieve is something along the lines of a diminished frequency of attacks and, maybe, a partial shift away from targeting Americans directly.
I don't actually see us eliminating terrorism unless we solve things like religious bigotry, the human tendency toward violent solutions to problems, and a host of other things that stem from our in-built tribalism.
Posts: 300 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:As for SSM: I understand why this is a hugely important issue for those whose lives are effected by it (ie gay people), but I've never really understood why it is so important to other people. Maybe someone could help me with the "why" part of the question there. [Smile]
For me, it's about equal rights. I just think that if two men, or two women live together and are faithful sexually and emotionally to the other then we should grant them the same rights as a married couple.
Also, I feel the whole SSM ban argument seems to follow the logic of "Good laws make good people." I don't think this is the case with SSM, I don't personally see how making a law against SSM will suddenly stop gays and lesbians from living together and devoting themselves to each other.
So, there's my two cents, for what it's worth Posts: 681 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:If I thought eliminating abortion is more important than eliminating terrorism it would be probably be for religious or moral reasons. Not for logical reasons. Rationally, I think eliminating terrorism is more important.
I think this thread is best used for people to list their issues, and not debate them. But I want to clear this up. Rationality is used once the goals are set. The reason we say monkeys are rational is that once they set the goal of retrieving ants, they use tools to do so.
If your goal is to get the cheapest car possible, rationality tells you to go to a Honda dealer over a BMW dealer. Rationality informs the means you use to achieve your goals, not your goals themselves. That's the whole of rational theory, right there.
If your goal is to preserve human life, and you believe that an unborn child is a human life, ending abortion can be considered a more rational goal than staving terrorism.
If a higher priority goal is ensuring your safety as a born person, than staving terrorism may be more rational than preventing abortion.
How we pick our ultimate goals isn't a matter of rationality because rationality is only introduced after the goals are set forth. What determines the ultimate goal for each person is controversial, whether it's animal instinct, religion, faith, or intuition, it's not a matter of rationality and to say that stopping terrorism is a rational goal whereas ending abortion is not degrades the entire argument. Both policies are rational within the context of their goal.
Edit: Focusing on banning abortion may be irrational if the person finds out that more babies would be carried to term if other social programs were instituted to support the mother. In such a case, the decision to focus on an outright ban could be considered irrational because the latter solution would better serve the same goal.
posted
And if our goal is to make the world a safer and happier place? Is it not an argument to say that it's more rational to first focus on staving terrorism than eliminating abortion?
Edit: I skipped over your 3rd and 4th paragraph before I wrote this. I understand what you mean.
Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am heterosexual, but I am in favor of equal marriage rights. I view it as a civil rights issue, and denying homosexual couples the right to marry is no less disgusting and appalling than denying marriage to interracial couples, which I believe the government has done. Homosexual couples, in asking for marriage rights, are not asking for more rights that are given to heterosexuals or special treatment. They are seeking exactly the same rights, and to deny them equal rights seems just as bad as denying black people or women the right to vote. Somehow, opponents to same sex marriage seem to think that homosexuals are not entitled that they enjoy, as if to imply if you are heterosexual, you should have more rights.
If two people love each other and are committed to spending the rest of their lives together, then I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed to marry and enjoy the same recognition from the government and the rest of society as heterosexual couples. I think it can only make our society stronger than we allow two people who obviously care for each other to be allowed to marry in demonstrating their commitment, regardless of sexual orientation, instead of eroding it as I have seen people claim.
Much of the opposition I have seen to gay marriage is based on religious beliefs that marriage should be able the raising of children, but those beliefs have no place in dictating policy when this country has instituted separation of religion and state. To me, marriage is not about raising children; it's more about commitment to be together through all the joys and perils that life brings.
It also surprises me that many of the conservatives who are in favor of limited government regulation because everyone should be allowed free choice actually want the government to stand in the way of two people who love each other and committed to each other from getting married, or keeping a woman from making a personal choice regarding her own body. It seems very contradictory to me.
posted
1) Governmental reform: eliminate the corruption, special interests - lobbyists need less control, bring it back to the people. Again, I suppose this translates mostly to campaign finance reform.
2) Space. We should be there, there's a new frontier out there and we need to open it. All these other issues aren't going to be solved any time soon but if we have colonies on multiple planets then if the Earth implodes due to one or more of the issues it won't be the end of the human race.
3) Abortion (for) - Civil Rights (including SSM) - Iraq War (end it) - Foreign Relations (improve/get the hell out of other folks business). These are all about equal for me.
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: In my opinion terrorism is a symptom. We can't eliminate terrorism without addressing the root causes.
Thank god someone said it.
My own list:
1) Budget - Trim the fat/raise taxes in the near term. Cut the Department of Defense budget big time.
2) Tax Reform - Simplify the tax code, for the love of god. Change the way we tax people in general, some sort of Fair/Flat Tax, National Sales Tax, thing. Make America more business friendly by fixing our taxes.
3) Energy Crisis - Federal dollars for a massive renewable energy push. Make homes more energy efficient, new regulations for new home construction and energy efficiency. We can fix the environment, and make money at the same time.
4) National Healthcare - Get it. Digitize health data and cut down on mistakes and save billions from administrative overhead. Focus on preventative medicine that will get people healthy and keep them that way, so we aren't treating illnesses caused by negligence and desperation.
5) Education Reform - College needs to be affordable for everyone in some way shape or form. It might not be a BA or BS you're getting, but a trade school, or some form of higher education needs to be made available. We need to fix K-12 education. It's outdated, wasteful, ineffective, and is going to kill us in 30 years when we realize the US isn't at the top of the educational pyramid anymore. I think we should follow the recommendations of the latest education panel and totally revamp education. Pay educators a fair wage for a college graduate and hard working individual. This will increase the quality of educators by attracting the best and brightest.
6) International Relations - Let's mend some fences. Open a dialogue with Iran at least. Take a more hardline approach with Saudi Arabia. Neither country is a friend, it's time we stopped supporting Saudi Arabia, especially when by many reports, Iranian citizens like us more than Saudi Arabians. Support a free Kurdish state, and protect them from Turkey. Take another serious stab at fixing Israel/Palestine.
Start a new relief effort in Africa. It will pay long term dividends by creating more consumers for our products, if you want that argument, but more importantly it's the right thing to do.
Get us out of Iraq. ASAP. ..... Somewhat less important but still on my radar:
7) Abortion - Work on reducing it. I'm against abortion with conditions, I think it's okay when rape, incest, or the life of the mother are issues, but I don't think it should be used as a form of birth control. More emphasis should be put in high school on the dangers of not using contraceptives, and educated them about safe sex and being responsible. We're not Puritans, hell, the Puritans weren't Puritans in the sense most people think. It's time to deal with sex and teens openly and honestly and give them the information they need to make their choices.
8) SSM - Legalize it.
9) Immigration - Work on a guest worker program. After everything I've listed above is fixed, I have no problem with increasing the number of people we legally allow to immigrate to this country.
10) The Electoral College - Kill it. Direct presidential elections should be how we elect our leaders.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Now that I see people mentioning space stuff, I think that does rank higher for me than some other things, although I doubt it's number one. I do believe we should be doing more in regards to space, in terms of further exploration and even beginning colonization. I doubt that'll be a big campaign issue for this next election though. There are too many other things to focus on.
Posts: 1960 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
To all those answering my poorly phrased question about why those who are not directly involved would care about SSM: I was not talking to those in FAVOR of SSM and civil liberties. I was talking to those OPPOSED to this. Basically, my question really boils down to this: Why would you want to stop someone else from living their life as they choose? How does their choice affect you?
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
1) Not everyone believes that government should only make laws that affect other people. Reframing your original question in this manner injects assumptions not shared by many who disagree with you.
2) Many people see marriage as the foundational relationship of society and see attempts to redefine it as a foundational change to society.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by jh: It also surprises me that many of the conservatives who are in favor of limited government regulation because everyone should be allowed free choice actually want the government to stand in the way of . . . a woman from making a personal choice regarding her own body. It seems very contradictory to me.
Either you have never ever spoken to (listened to) an opponent of abortion, or you are being dishonest in your argument. My hypothesis is the latter.
It's not remotely contradictory.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Christine -- I don't want to be rude, but I am going to decline to answer your question. Every time I've tried to do that here, I have expended a lot of time and effort was rewarded with horrible experience. It's not something I'm willing to do again at this time.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, I've railed against daylight savings for years, but it's finally starting to grow on me.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, shoot. So if I ever do find a candidate willing to make this his issue too, we can no longer count on your vote?
Posts: 364 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Much of the opposition I have seen to gay marriage is based on religious beliefs that marriage should be able the raising of children, but those beliefs have no place in dictating policy when this country has instituted separation of religion and state. To me, marriage is not about raising children; it's more about commitment to be together through all the joys and perils that life brings.
Actually, I think public policy shouldn't be defined by anyone saying "This is what marriage means to me." Religious or not, liberal or not.
We need to try, in a nonpartisan way, to understand the valuable function marriage serves in society, and make sure our policy encourages that function to continue unhindered.
We ought to view marriage the way a biologist views the features that evolve in living things. When you look at a giraffe's long neck, do you ask, "What is the intent of that neck?" or "Why does that giraffe like his long neck?" No, you ask, "Why did that long neck persist, while other forms died out? What survival value does it have?"
Similarly, we need to ask ourselves why societies that promote marriage have persisted on such a massive scale, compared to societies that eschew marriage. What survival value, if any, does marriage have for a society, and how can we ensure that we do not incur an unacceptable risk to our society's future by making the wrong changes to it?
While achieving true nonpartisanship on an issue like this is virtually impossible, still, pursuing a course like this is way more productive than "Your opinion doesn't count because you're religious! This is what marriage means to me: [insert an opinion as unfounded as anyone's religion]."
quote:Originally posted by Amilia: Well, shoot. So if I ever do find a candidate willing to make this his issue too, we can no longer count on your vote?
I'm afraid not.
For me, the difference came when I realized that it makes a lot of sense to base the start of the day on sunrise rather than on midnight.
If we didn't have clocks, we'd probably base our on sunrise (or sunset), not on the midpoint between the two. It would make more sense as the days shorten and lengthen to get up at approximately the same time according to sunrise than to get up at the same time according to midnight.
That doesn't work so well with a standardized time system, though, where a day needs to equal 24 hours every day.
Daylight savings brings us closer to a sunrise-based time system than it would be without daylight savings time. That's a reason that I can get behind.
Now, if you had a candidate that wanted to switch us over to the metric system, that I could get behind.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Puppy, I can appreciate your concern, but there was a time in which the same argument could have been (and was) made for government by royalty. Surely there was a reason why societies that ruled by monarchy had persisted on just a massive scale, compared to societies that eschewed them.
And yet the US broke with that tradition on grounds of principle.
It's not the same, of course -- it's only an analogy, an application of the reasoning in a different context leading to a different conclusion. I don't mean to contradict you, just to point out that the reasoning has problems. (But I know you probably know this. We just reason as best we can.)
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
For me, the difference came when I realized that it makes a lot of sense to base the start of the day on sunrise rather than on midnight.
If we didn't have clocks, we'd probably base our on sunrise (or sunset), not on the midpoint between the two. It would make more sense as the days shorten and lengthen to get up at approximately the same time according to sunrise than to get up at the same time according to midnight.
That doesn't work so well with a standardized time system, though, where a day needs to equal 24 hours every day.
Daylight savings brings us closer to a sunrise-based time system than it would be without daylight savings time. That's a reason that I can get behind.
Now, if you had a candidate that wanted to switch us over to the metric system, that I could get behind.
I admit that much of my beef with Daylight Savings comes from working early mornings for years. By the time I finally start getting up with the sun, the clocks switch and I'm getting up in the middle of the night again.
And does it not seem hard to you, When all the sky is clear and blue, And I should like so much to play, To have to go to bed by day? [R. L. Stevenson, "Bed in Summer"]
But what really makes this "my issue" is the way it messes with sleep patterns. After the government screws with our clocks, I'm tired for months. By the time I finally get adjusted to the new schedule, the govt. is ready to screw with the clocks again. If some politician decided to make Daylight Savings a year round thing, I'd grouse for a bit (because I really do think the sun should rise in the morning and set in the evening), but I'd get over it.
As to the metric thing . . . sorry, but I've got to abandon you there. I just can't think in metric. All the zeros get very confusing. Do I add a zero or take one away for deci. Is mili a thousand or a million. Or a thousandth or a millionth. With standard, the conversions are much easier to remember as they are all different. 3 teaspoons to a tablespoon, 16 tablespoons to a cup, 2 cups to a pint, 2 pints to a quart, 4 quarts to a gallon.
Posts: 364 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Now, if you had a candidate that wanted to switch us over to the metric system, that I could get behind.
I'm with you.
My youngest (7) just learned about thermometers. I bit my tongue when she was talking about it being 20 degrees in the freezer and 80 degrees outside. She'll learn that there is more than one system in a few years -- it's asking a bit much that first-graders deal with two temperature scales. But that means yet another generation of Americans who will never naturally think in metric. I know I don't, and I've been teaching in and using metric for years.
(When she told me about the "red mercury" I did correct her, and explained that some thermometers had mercury (which is silver), but that ones with red liquid had alcohol.)
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
1) Not everyone believes that government should only make laws that affect other people. Reframing your original question in this manner injects assumptions not shared by many who disagree with you.
2) Many people see marriage as the foundational relationship of society and see attempts to redefine it as a foundational change to society.
I'm having trouble parcing your first point here. What assumption was I making? I was actually assuming that people who are against SSM (legally) believe that it affects them or society in some way and I'm trying to figure out how.
As for #2, well, that really doesn't explain anything for me. First, taken at face value, it assumes that change itself is bad. If I read between the lines, I could assume that people think this potential change to society is a bad change, but in that case I'm still back to why? How does it affect your life (our lives)?
quote:Christine -- I don't want to be rude, but I am going to decline to answer your question. Every time I've tried to do that here, I have expended a lot of time and effort was rewarded with horrible experience. It's not something I'm willing to do again at this time.
There is never a reason to engag ein a debate you don't want to become involved in. As I'm relatively new here and haven't seen what you've posted (or gone through) before, I will simply have to be disappointed. Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm having trouble parcing your first point here. What assumption was I making? I was actually assuming that people who are against SSM (legally) believe that it affects them or society in some way and I'm trying to figure out how.
The assumption you've made is that, for someone to think government should regulate a particular action, that action must effect that someone.
quote:As for #2, well, that really doesn't explain anything for me. First, taken at face value, it assumes that change itself is bad. If I read between the lines, I could assume that people think this potential change to society is a bad change, but in that case I'm still back to why? How does it affect your life (our lives)?
I've attempted to (as I said, briefly) point you in the direction of reasons cited by many SSM opponents. Your questions are impose what you consider the proper decisional criteria to be (does it affect YOU) and then demand people explain their opinion only in the context of that criteria.
Though I think you truly want to understand why others oppose SSM, I don't think you've approached that attempt to understand at the right place in the chain of reasoning. To someone who leans heavily libertarian, as you seem to do, "how does this affect others" seems the logical place to start. To someone who doesn't share those leanings, it's not.
I'm not going to give a detailed explanation of a view I don't share. I was simply trying to get you to step back from the assumptions that framed your question.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think I see where you're going now, Dag. In fact, I would normally ask about how something affects society (where crimes against individuals can be a valid subset), but the reason I asked it this way in this particular thread is that the initial post asked what everyone's biggest issue is. People are often most interested in things that most directly affect them. I suppose, alternately, they could care most about those issues which most impact society, although I'm having real trouble seeing SSM as the biggest threat to America today. Perhaps that is where I should have looked for inspiration for my question. Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
In Canada, we've already got the metric system.
Let's see. My issues are:
1)Abortion. Complete ban except when the mother's life is at stake. No abortions done in clinics, only in hospitals.
2)Environmentalism: Reach and surpass the goals given in the Kyoto Accord. Reach an agreement with the USA regulating emissions in border cities.
3)Africa. Increase aid and government-sponsored research for AIDS, and commital of more stabilizing forces in Darfur.
4)Severely decreasing the power of lobbies. Set a strict limit on all forms of public sponsorship, and increase government accountability.
Posts: 1594 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
If abortion is considered wrong because it is the killing of a human being, I don't see how the circumstances of conception would change that.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can respect that in terms of the consistency (though my general conclusion differs); what Poteiro said makes sense as an ethical stance to me.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:If abortion is considered wrong because it is the killing of a human being, I don't see how the circumstances of conception would change that.
I can conceive of such an argument, based on a form of assumption of risk being part of the justification of the ban (which would not be present in the case of rape), although I don't think the argument is correct.
To me, the default position is against killing a human being. In my view, to (legally) justify intentional killing requires either a comparable threat to the one on whose behalf the killing is done or culpability on the part of the one being killed. Since I think it's impossible for the unborn child to be culpable for anything, only the first justification matters to me.
Some people view the second factor not as culpability of the one being killed but as lack of responsibility of the one on whose behalf the killing is done. Rape would then remove an element of responsibility not present even with protected sex - no choice was ever made to engage in activity that might result in pregnancy.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
What's my issue? The good judgement of the politicians I am voting for.
It is impossible for me to be as well informed on all the important issues the country faces. That is the job of our leaders. My job, in this representative democracy, is merely to pick the leaders who will become well-informed about those issues and who will then have to make decisions. So, for that reason, I think it is most important to pick leaders with good judgement - who can look at the information available and come to a smart, rational, wise decision afterward. Then I could trust our leaders to make decisions for me on issues I don't have the time to examine fully.
I would rather be ruled by a wise man who disagrees with me than a foolish man who agrees with my stance on the issues.
Having said that, I think there is a shortage of politicians with good judgement in this country. Or, perhaps more accurately, there is an excess of politicians with bad judgement, who try their hardest to look like they are wise.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think there is a shortage of voters qualified to judge the wisdom of others, mainly because there's a shortage of people who are so qualified.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure it is possible to be "qualified" or "unqualified" for that. But I do think the average voter is much more capable of judging a candidate's judgement than they are capable of judging which issues are most important and how we can best go about resolving each of those issues.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't. The way the candidate comes out on issues one has formed an opinion on is probably the best guide anyone who does not know the politician personally has on that person's judgment.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
My top priority is environmental, because none of the other things matter if we can't breathe the air or drink the water. After that are foreign policy and gay marriage rights.
Posts: 2711 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Threats to our system of government, specifically:
* Gerrymandering. The SC has ruled that all grounds for restricting gerrymandering are unconstitutional. * Censorship of political speech. McCain and others have expressed intent to close the loophole in McCain-Feingold that allows ordinary citizens to exercise political speech in mass communications during election season. * Judicial activism. Important decisions on social issues and even tax policy (sometimes) are now made by the courts, not the people.
Other issues are important, but if these go wrong, we won't have a voice, so it won't matter what we think.
[ March 12, 2007, 03:53 PM: Message edited by: Qaz ]
Posts: 544 | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't get the judicial activism thing. They make decisions based on laws created by the people. Courts uphold the law. If you don't like their decisions, change the law, but don't blame them for doing their jobs.
And how are anti-gerrymandering laws unconstitutional?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
I can't be sure yet but I think I should have said that all *grounds,* not all *laws*, are unconstitutional. My bad. The reason it's called unconstitutional is that the grounds are too vague. If so, maybe that's legitimate -- but we still need a restriction on it. Note that Kennedy said he would change his view under some circumstances.
Judicial activism: judges don't always make decisions based on laws created by the people. Sometimes they base them on what they want; on what they consider right, apart from the law; even on foreign law, or an extra-Constitutional view of what law is for. Courts do not always uphold the law (sometimes they strike it down). Sometimes changing the law doesn't work, as when Congress kept passing laws in the 1860's and 1870's to stop Southern states from disenfranchising blacks, and the SC kept interpreting the laws to not apply to blacks. I think it is reasonable to blame people for doing their jobs improperly, but I wasn't really talking about blame, just about democracy.
Posts: 544 | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
That case does not say that "*all* grounds restricting gerrymandering are unconstitutional." In fact, counting Kennedy, a majority of justices held that there was a judicial remedy to at least some constitutional actions concerning gerrymandering. Two of the justices who said there could never be a judicial remedy are no longer on the court.
Further, the lack of judicial remedy does NOT mean that there can be no remedy. It would be perfectly permissible for states to create anti-Gerrymandering causes of actions for their citizens. It's conceivable, too, that Congress could use its enforcement powers under the 14th amendment to provide a federal cause of action, although it's not clear this would be constitutional. For such a law to be constitutional, Congress would have to have findings of fact that (in a simplified form) 1) the equal protection right to non-gerrymandered districts has been routinely violated by the states and 2) congressional action that protects the right to a greater extent than its constitutional boundary is necessary to protect from future violations.
If the court finds that there is such an equal protection right and that those findings of fact were adequatly founded, the court could uphold a federal cause of action against gerrymandering.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am curious about the people who would allow abortion in cases of "rape or incest". What's the deal with incest? Are we talking about (for example) two adult siblings and you would allow abortion if the sister got pregnant, or are you refering to underage girls impregnated by fathers, grandfathers, or uncles -- in which case, would't that also be rape?
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
2) Educational Correction (mainly lots more funding, and progressive policies)
3) Less governmental interference, more governmental assistance. (Government subsidized health/auto insurance, less governmental mandate that I MUST have auto insurance.)
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Government subsidized auto insurance? What for?
I tend to agree with mandated insurance. I've heard of too many cases of people getting totally screwed over by uninsured drivers. Even crappily insured drivers can do the same.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
If some politician decided to make Daylight Savings a year round thing, I'd grouse for a bit (because I really do think the sun should rise in the morning and set in the evening), but I'd get over it.
