Hot Topics, v. 2007.2
For discussions that need to be handled with care.
Continued from version 2007.1.
Date: February 23, 2007
Categories: Ideas, Life, The Universe
Comments RSS TrackBack 248 comments
-
1
FrigidSymphony
in February 23rd, 2007 @ 06:38Ok, so we continue pre-marital sex discussion here. Post your opinions.
0
0
-
2
Eragon Shadeslayer
in February 23rd, 2007 @ 07:01my damned sex ed classes all say the same thing: abstinences before marriage. the a**holes! like they’ve never broken that rule before? come on. maybe we could try relationship education classes. that would be a lot more helpful than this crap.
0
0
-
3
FrigidSymphony
in February 23rd, 2007 @ 07:042: Apparently american sex ed classes are horrible. I mean, the european catholic teacher I had didn’t explain anything useful, but at least he didn’t tell everyone how premarital sex was a sin and we’d be going to hell.
0
0
-
4
Elizabeth
in February 23rd, 2007 @ 09:411- how did we get to this topic from the first hot topics thread?
0
0
-
5
Robert Coontz (Administrator)
in February 23rd, 2007 @ 10:12Via the Valentine’s Day thread, of all places.
0
0
-
6
Rebecca Lasley (Administrator)
in February 23rd, 2007 @ 10:43An eminently logical provenance, I’d say.
0
0
-
7
dark duke of darkness
in February 23rd, 2007 @ 13:13so. marriage is something when two or more people commit their lives to each other. (well, at least thats what they say) sex does not entail committing yourself to someone else. therefore, pre(or post) marital sex is absolutely fine.
0
0
-
8
...
in February 23rd, 2007 @ 13:59Premarital sex is wrong, not only for health reasons. It’s like saying “I love you completely forever but not enough to try to live with you in marriage and have children.” (Besides, a condom doesn’t give 100% protection. It says so in my biology book.) Furthermore, children are the crown of marriage. The idea that love produces (or should produce) life is one of the most beautiful ideas i have ever encountered.
I’m speaking from the standpoint of having only a boy as a friend and also practising what I believe in.
0
0
-
9
Robert Coontz (Administrator)
in February 23rd, 2007 @ 14:01(8),
Wouldn’t you rather have a name of some sort? It’s awkward to address and refer to you as “…”; I can’t even pronounce it.
0
0
-
10
Elizabeth
in February 23rd, 2007 @ 14:277- I agree, as long as each person knows what they are getting into and the possible consequenses
0
0
-
11
Eragon Shadeslayer
in February 23rd, 2007 @ 14:43sorry for the outburst on my previous post. i’m having a bad day. *cue daniel powter “Bad Day” music*
oh well. i might as well try and enjoy my life.
8- i agree with OEAD. you need a real name, because “…” is punctuation, not a name. change it or face the sword of Morzan, my father! o–l=======>
0
0
-
12
Robert Coontz (Administrator)
in February 23rd, 2007 @ 14:46Technically, the punctuation is called an ellipsis, but I guess we could pronounce it “dot dot dot.”
0
0
-
13
curious and questioning the ellipsis fan
in February 23rd, 2007 @ 15:32What’s wrong with having an unpronounceable name? I point out that one of the foundations of this site is “pwt pwns”. I can think of three or four pronunciations for that without even trying. I will add something to my name in support of this my next five posts. Including this one. Oh, and are you new, …, (really, though, it is kind of awkward). If so, *pies*. If not, *pies anyway*.
On the actual subject of this thread:
I restate my opinion from the Valentine’s Day thread. I am personally against it, but I am also against anyone else being prohibited from making a choice of their own free will.
0
0
-
14
dark duke of darkness
in February 23rd, 2007 @ 16:378-not really…. why do you have to love someone completely and forever to have sex with them?
10-of course. as long as no one is hurt etc. etc.
0
0
-
15
Lizzie
in February 23rd, 2007 @ 17:287- although it’s been shown that it is harder for women to have gratituitous sex, aka without any other deeper feelings/commitment than for men.. I guess because biologically, we’re the ones who would end up having to care for the offspring and so would rather have commitment..
And I have to point out that marriage, currently, doesn’t really seem to be seen as a “life commitment”. I mean, Britney Spears?
Personally, I think that if two people want to have sex, they’re not married, etc that they should go ahead.. Birth control is always good, though. Even when you are married.
0
0
-
16
valent1ne
in February 23rd, 2007 @ 19:28These points of view really depend on religion, don’t they?
0
0
-
17
Axa
in February 23rd, 2007 @ 21:18(3) Incorrect, they don’t tell us we’re going to hell. Premarital sex is discouraged because of the risks of unwanted pregnancy. I honestly think that they’re really aiming towards discouraging us, as teens, not to have sex since we’re young and teen pregnancy, etc.
(8) Not necessarily so. :p Sex is an important step for a lot of couples (from what I gather this is me talking with no experience DX) so it could be another way to affirm your love for someone. It’s hard to say that just because you aren’t married, you love someone less. Many people are just as much in love as the next, and yet unmarried; in my opinion, we’re putting altogether too much value on marriage. I acknowledge it’s importance and what it means, but marriage is not always equal to omg love forever and ever~~~~~~♥
10) Agreed!
0
0
-
18
curious and questioning the confused, conflicted, and other
in February 23rd, 2007 @ 21:4816- I don’t know about religion, but morals maybe. I am areligious, but that’s my choice because my parents are interfaith and I was exposed to a lot of contradictory “this is right” when I was being given the information to base an educated decision on my choice of religion when I was younger. So belief in a religious system isn’t it, but what those around you believe and what you were exposed to when young might be it.
0
0
-
19
hotstuff trinity
in February 23rd, 2007 @ 22:45Premarital sex… I don’t see what the huge problem is. I think that people can do whatever they want. If there are consequences, then so be it.
As for there bring health issues. There shouldn’t be a difference. sex is sex is sex. It’s no less dangerous after the vows than before them. Premarital sex isn’t the same as indiscriminate sex. If someone has an STD, that won’t change when they get married. I know an argument might be that people who choose to have sex before marriage are going to have sex with more people, but that isn’t neccessarily true.
Remember to use prtection, kids!ok, done rambling.
0
0
-
20
FrigidSymphony
in February 24th, 2007 @ 06:238: Unless a condom is defective, or used improperly, it does guarantee protection.
And sex is not a commitment, it’s not getting married, it’s a healthy activity that normal people do, inside or out of wedlock. And it’s not like every time you have sex you’re totally risking AIDs or something else, true, those illnesses do exist, and are an actual threat that need to be dealt with. But you’re probably safe anyway. Unless you’re in Africa.
0
0
-
21
kricket
in February 24th, 2007 @ 09:10I think that premarital sex is bad. It’s just bad especially if the people have no idea what they’re doing, or what they’re getting into. I mean, if they’re getting married in like a week, then maybe and just maybe it’s okay. But, still, some people… Ugh, I think it’s bad. Really bad. I mean, you can get diseases from it like STDs or AIDs. But that’s just my opinion. So no flamewars.
0
0
-
22
FrigidSymphony
in February 24th, 2007 @ 12:1021: I tell you again, you’re very unlikely to catch a disease like that IF you take adequate precautions. Even if you don’t, there’s stil only a small chance you’ll get infection.
0
0
-
23
Lizzie
in February 24th, 2007 @ 13:1122- or, better yet, you could just not have sex with someone with STDs…
0
0
-
24
FrigidSymphony
in February 24th, 2007 @ 13:4623: Problem is, how can you know who has STDs or not? You can’t.
0
0
-
25
Lizzie
in February 24th, 2007 @ 14:3624- man, that would be the strangest pickup line ever – “hey, want to find out if I have STDs?”
0
0
-
26
FrigidSymphony
in February 24th, 2007 @ 14:5925: I ain’t trying that anytime soon.
0
0
-
27
dark duke of darkness
in February 24th, 2007 @ 15:0020-hey. africa’s a big continent with lots of countries. its not all like bliddy homesteads in post apartheid south africa. (for example, egypt)
25-lol. literally
19-not quite true. but i agree with you. see if you’re married, you probably know if your spouse has stds. you know?
21-STDs and AIDS? okay that was mean . but seriously, why do you have to be married to know what your getting into? aperantly you know what they are getting into, and i assume you’re not married. why do you think that everyone else doesnt know the same things you do? about te disease thing, have you heard of protected sex?
17 morals-relating to a sense of right and wrong. pretty much the only reason you would thing pre marital sex is bad is a-religion, or b-being brainwashed by your teachers. my morals basically are-if your doing something to someone, and they dont want it, or it could case something they dont want and are unaware of in the future, dont do it. ie, here have some wine! sure, i like wine. oh wait,…… i forgot to tell you it was poisoned.
15-well, thats what it supposed to be, and everyone wants it to be. (marriage)
0
0
-
28
Capricious the great and terrible
in February 24th, 2007 @ 15:0225- That was funny. I acually laughed out loud.
Okay, so basically you guys are saying that it’s okay to have sex with anyone any time. And, that it’s okay to have sex when you are married to someone else?
I know you didn’t actually say that, but based on your principles, it would be okay?
0
0
-
29
FrigidSymphony
in February 24th, 2007 @ 15:3128: No, you should have a loving relationship with your sex partner. And obviously when you’re married the situation changes, and out of love to your partner you shouldn’t actually be able to. I know I couldn’t do anything to betray Arianna, despite the fact that I was rejected… for now…
0
0
-
30
dark duke of darkness
in February 24th, 2007 @ 16:2228-yes, it would be okay, if your spouse agrees. if s/he doesnt, it could hurt them, which is BAD
0
0
-
31
Ötzi
in February 24th, 2007 @ 16:33A related topic- people who won’t let their daughters get the HPV vaccine (HPV causes cervical cancer). I cant believe them- They say it encourages them to be sexually active. I mean, come ON. It’s a VACCINE to keep her from getting CANCER. These people seem to be ignoring the fact that a) their daughter might have sex anyway and b) that their daughters might get raped by a carrier. I mean, come on. Would it be fair for a girl to get cervical cancer because she was raped and her parents wouldn’t let her get the vaccine? what do you ppls think about this?
0
0
-
32
Julieb
in February 24th, 2007 @ 17:0031- Most people are only protesting the vaccine being mandatory to attend school. Since it is not spread through any contact you would have at school, people don’t believe it’s within the school’s discretion. Personally, I agree that we should encourage girls and their parents to get the vaccine but I’m unsure that it should be mandatory.
0
0
-
33
Axa
in February 24th, 2007 @ 17:32(28) No, I’m saying that it’s two people’s decision, and no one elses. If they want to do the nasty before they get married/ or in general, bully for them. If they don’t whatever.
0
0
-
34
Lizzie
in February 24th, 2007 @ 17:3332- the problem with it being mandatory is that it’s a relatively new vaccine, and so the side effects of it aren’t certain yet.
0
0
-
35
dark duke of darkness
in February 24th, 2007 @ 18:2331-it makes sense for it to be mandatory… i mean, for a number of reasons.
34-oh wait, no it doesnt. lol.
0
0
-
36
Capricious the great and terrible
in February 25th, 2007 @ 16:3829- Yes, but it seems that is what you are saying.
30- If your spouse agrees, they probably have some problems. -.-;;
33- You’ve got a point.
0
0
-
37
dark duke of darkness
in February 25th, 2007 @ 16:4536-not necessarily. some people are very liberal.
0
0
-
38
Imperial Majesty Purple Panda the Apocalyptic of Giggleswick on the Naze
in February 25th, 2007 @ 18:59Liberal-ness! w00t!
I just learned today why left/right is used for Republicans and Democrats. A long time ago, (in France, I think), the Republicans would sit on the Right side of the room, and the Democrats would sit on the left side of the room. Or something along those lines.
0
0
-
39
100% Cotton
in February 25th, 2007 @ 20:48premarital sex: have fun with that. in some countries people don’t even really bother to get married. they just live together. and if you think about it, marriage isn’t that important from a non religious standpoint. if you love someone that’s what counts.
other topics:
should we legalize pot? (i was at a JSA convention this weekend, and the majority of people actually voted yes)free trade or fair trade?
should the USA foster peace talks between the american government and the zapatisas?
0
0
-
40
100% Cotton
in February 25th, 2007 @ 20:49oops. sorry to double post. but i meant
should the USA foster peace talks between the MEXICAN government and the zapatistas?
0
0
-
41
Capricious the great and terrible
in February 26th, 2007 @ 08:3637- Yes, I suppose. I still would never let my spouse do that! It seems so wrong, from my perspective.
0
0
-
42
Otzi
in February 26th, 2007 @ 14:58Fair trade.
Controlled pot (tax it)
I don’t know enough about the Zapatista affair to make an informed decision. What’s it about?
0
0
-
43
dark duke of darkness
in February 26th, 2007 @ 16:2638-allmost. the liberals (wanted freedom from england etc. etc. sat to the left. and the conservatives who wanted the opposite sat to the right. the current democratic party is actually quite conservative. only a bit less so than the republicans.
0
0
-
44
dark duke of darkness
in February 26th, 2007 @ 16:2738-allmost. the liberals (wanted freedom from england etc. etc. sat to the left. and the conservatives who wanted the opposite sat to the right. the current democratic party is actually quite conservative. only a bit less so than the republicans.
42-ditto. but i am inclined to think that peace is good! so yeah.
0
0
-
45
Robert Coontz (Administrator)
in February 26th, 2007 @ 16:39(43),
I had heard that the distinction started in France. That’s what Wikipedia says, too. Here’s the beginning of the “origin” section of its article on “/Left-right_politics” (there’s much more):
Historical origin of the terms
The terms Left and Right have been used to refer to political affiliation since the early part of the French Revolutionary era. They originally referred to the seating arrangements in the various legislative bodies of France, specifically in the French Legislative Assembly of 1791, when the moderate royalist Feuillants sat on the right side of the chamber, while the radical Montagnards sat on the left.
Originally, the defining point on the ideological spectrum was attitudes towards the ancien régime (“old order”). “The Right” thus implied support for aristocratic, royal, or clerical interests, while “The Left” implied opposition to the same. At that time, support for laissez-faire capitalism and free markets were regarded as being on the left whereas today in most Western countries these views would be characterized as being on the Right. But even during the French Revolution an extreme left wing called for government intervention in the economy on behalf of the poor.
0
0
-
46
Kagcomix
in February 26th, 2007 @ 16:5120- nuh uh
31- agreed, a girl in y grade got that vaccine and people were making fun of her-me? i think she’s smart.okeee sex without marrige…. i don’t actually want to have sex before im married….. because i don’t no other reason. now other people can do what they want. i don’t really care. sex before marrige is fine as long as both people in the relation ship agree.
sex ed classes- verry awkward…wegot a test that was half our physED Mark…..labeldiagrams…. know everything about stis….. hehe its fun qwizzing your friends or just saying random facts about herpes and stuff….. i hope never to have to go through this sort of experiance again.
0
0
-
47
dark duke of darkness
in February 26th, 2007 @ 20:4045- i stand corrected.
0
0
-
48
Kiara
in February 27th, 2007 @ 11:09Premarital sex: (for girls) Do you really want to get pregnant and end up with kids without a husband or any confirmed support? Sure, you can ship them off to some adoption agency, but there’s your reputation too. ex. – “Oh, so and so had a kid with so and so” going around as a rumor? Oh, and not only are there diseases, there are childbirth complications, or you could go and get an abortion.(hinthintnudgenudgewinkwink abortion is BAD)
It’s not a choice, it’s a child.
And that would be the same as murder. So do you really want to risk having sex when it could easily ruin the rest of your life? For some reason, it seems like a pretty bad idea to me.
0
0
-
49
FrigidSymphony
in February 27th, 2007 @ 12:4048: Jesus Christ, sex does not mean children! They’re called contraceptives and no, they are not evil, eve though the pope says so. By Odin, some people…
0
0
-
50
Robert Coontz (Administrator)
in February 27th, 2007 @ 13:24As a matter of etiquette, I’m going to discourage MuseBloggers from swearing by gods whom they do not themselves worship. If you are Asatru, presumably Thor, Odin, et al. are available for the purpose.
0
0
-
51
FrigidSymphony
in February 27th, 2007 @ 13:4550: Alright. By Odin it is then!
0
0
-
52
Otzi
in February 27th, 2007 @ 15:0148: Oh, Abortion is bad? Why? So a rape vicim can support her attacker’s offspring? so a low income mother can deal with a critically ill child? So a sick woman can die in childbirth? So a guy can get his girlfriend pregnant and leave her? I am not advocating abortion. I am advocating choice. The choice of whether to have the kid. If it’s a choice, not a child, then it’s obviously not a woman, it’s a brood mare. In a country dedicated to freedom, I’m appalled that this fundamental right might be taken away.
As for the whole issue of premarital sex, I really couldn’t care less what people do in bed with whom as long as it is between consenting adults, and I don’t think it’s any buisness of the government either.
0
0
-
53
Kiara
in February 27th, 2007 @ 15:5552 – Well, if any of these people (except for the rape victim) knew that they had low income, or that their boyfreind wasn’t their husband, or that their health conditions wouldn’t allow them to succesfully deliver a child, shouldn’t they just not have sex, knowing that the outcome could endager their lives? I’m pro-choice for rape victims, but most other people already had their own choice: should I go to bed with this person or not? If they said yes, then it’s their fault. They chose to risk having a baby. The “choice of whether to have the kid” is started by choosing whether or not to have sex. It starts there.
If someone was forced into having sex, then I say that they can have a choice. And by the way, an abortion could be harmful to a sick person too, or actually anyone, judging by some of the instruments used in less sanitary places. (ex coat hangers) An abortion: not only can endanger the life of the person having it, but ALWAYS KILLS the baby.
And I’d be pretty appalled that murder is a fundamental right in the first place.
0
0
-
54
Julieb
in February 27th, 2007 @ 16:01Oh, not the abortion debate again! It’s what, the 3rd time? Let it rest people! There are tons of news stories! If you have to argue, pick one. Nuclear programs, peace talks and bombings fill the electronic news pages, not to mention tons of other stories I haven’t had a chance to check yet. Let’s see… Suicide bomber misses Cheney, more from Darfur, isreal-palestine conflict continues(shockers, I know), global warming(good news, actually), and plenty more I’m just not that interested in right now.
0
0
-
55
dark duke of darkness
in February 27th, 2007 @ 16:0349-indeed.
52-yep. agreed. but… about the adult thing. personally i don’t consider like 16 year olds adults, but i don’t see anything wrong with them having sex. not that 16 is the limit. i said like, remember?
50-ummmmmm what if we dont have gods? this is religiously biased, because the god of nonexistence says so. or the flying spaghetti monster. wait a second. i just looked up flying spaghetti monster on wikipedia, and i am now an official convert. so, by the flying spaghetti monster, that decision is religiously biased.
0
0
-
56
Elizabeth
in February 27th, 2007 @ 16:0539-no, yes, yes
52- ya, I agree, but I think what FS is saying is that you won’t necessarily have kids if you have sex, but in the end, I believe in a choice and it’s no one elses business what you do
0
0
-
57
Julieb
in February 27th, 2007 @ 16:12Oh, wait, here’s a good one: London authorities may take an obese 8 year old boy from his parents. I guess it falls under child abuse? Neglect? Apparently his parents say he’s well cared for. What do you think?
0
0
-
58
Robert Coontz (Administrator)
in February 27th, 2007 @ 16:17(55),
I’ll exempt gods whom nobody worships. Feel free to swear by Zarquon or Cthulhu, or even Zeus, Athena, or Thoth.
0
0
-
59
(u|2i0u5 4|\||) qu357i0|\|i|\|g 73h |\|0|\|-1337
in February 27th, 2007 @ 16:1753- If you believe that it’s a baby. I hold the view that early term abortion is OK, but there’s a point after a certain amount of weeks where before it the (what’s the word? fetus? thing that becomes the baby) isn’t a person and after it it is. Abortion because you find out the baby’s the wrong gender (late term)=wrong. Early term abortion, I think in cases could be all right.
0
0
-
60
Musketeer Number 5
in February 27th, 2007 @ 16:2453. DONT TALK UNKESS U UNDERSTAND THE SITUATION!
if the person is desperate enough to want to prevent their child, embryo, watever from entering the world that they would use a coat hanger, etc. they’ve got a pretty good reason, DONT CONDEMN THEM!!!!!!!!
An abortion is NOT a descision someone makes in a second, they way their options, if they see this as the best one, then who are YOU to tell them what they are doing is wrong?!
0
0
-
61
dark duke of darkness
in February 27th, 2007 @ 16:2858-and the FSM>?
0
0
-
62
Countess Pentatonikk the Unctuous of Leighton Buzzard
in February 27th, 2007 @ 16:33Here comes the abortion debate again. Ohboy.
48 (Kiara)- No, it’s not a child (at least for the first trimester or so). It’s a mass of cells.
52 (Otzi)- I pretty much agree with everything you’ve said. Moving on…!
53 (Kiara)- Let me use an analogy here. If you have an allergy to peanuts so severe that eating the smallest amount will kill you, of course you have to be careful with labels and about what you eat. You probably shouldn’t eat chocolate, for example, since companies that make peanut chocolate process it on the same equipment as plain. But does your allergy mean you have to be tube-fed your entire life? Of course not.
Similarly, women should be allowed to have sex, and to make their own decisions about having sex. Maybe a woman isn’t married, but she’s in love with her boyfriend and wants to have sex with him. If they use contraception, the chance that she’ll get pregnant is very, very small. Yes, it’s there, just like the risk of dying from the peanut allergy. But it’s small, and if both people involved make sensible decisions in the matter, I personally don’t see what’s wrong with taking that risk.
Or what if she’s a married woman who has a disease that would endanger her life if she had children? Are you really going to say that no, she can’t have sex with her husband, just because there’s a chance she could get pregnant? And if she does, are you going to say that she can’t take some measure to save her own life?
On to your second point. If abortion was legal for anyone, with laws governing it, the less sanitary places wouldn’t be used as often. Getting an abortion in an abortion clinic carries a risk, again, but it’s a very small one. Giving birth, even if the mother and baby are both healthy, carries a risk too.
If abortion were illegal, then abortion clinics wouldn’t be able to afford safe equipment, and desperate women who wanted to save their lives would be forced to turn to coat hangers.
Abortion is not murder. You kill more cells every day by stepping on grass/bacteria/bugs than a first-trimester abortion does. I doubt you’d condemn that as murder.
If you think that killing things isn’t a fundamental right, good luck finding food. Perhaps you can learn to digest rocks?
0
0
-
63
Axa
in February 27th, 2007 @ 18:55I’d like to put in my two cents toward the people who say the fetus can feel pain when aborted.
1) Tell me about your memories in the womb. No really, I’m interested. How did it feel being suspended in your mother’s belly for nine months? Better yet, how was it being conceived?
No logic. None. I have no memory of being a fetus. IT IS RIDICULOUS TO ME THAT I HAVE TO POINT THIS OUT. But I truly, truly do not recall.
0
0
-
64
FrigidSymphony
in February 28th, 2007 @ 11:59COme on, end the abortion debate, by Thor! Abortion is good, period.
0
0
-
65
Countess Pentatonikk the Unctuous of Leighton Buzzard
in February 28th, 2007 @ 12:4464 (FS)- Let us all run out and get abortions and eradicate the human race!
Abortion is neither good nor bad. It’s a thing. It can be used well and used badly and that is all there is to it.
And I am sick of talking about this on HT threads because we talk about it on EVERY SINGLE ONE. gawsh.
0
0
-
66
FrigidSymphony
in February 28th, 2007 @ 13:2565: Some people require retro-active abortions. Like JK Rowling. And Christopher Paolini. And Ratzinger.
0
0
-
67
Musketeer Number 5
in February 28th, 2007 @ 15:4866. Retro-active abortions, wat a brilliant idea!! I can think of hundreds of deserving “shouldn’t-have-beens”
Is anyone following one particular 08 pres candidate?
I’ve decided that so far they’re all idoits and so america is pretty much doomed…
0
0
-
68
dark duke of darkness
in February 28th, 2007 @ 16:32567-ehhhhhhhhhh. im liking obama.
0
0
-
69
Julieb
in February 28th, 2007 @ 17:19Why is everyone so worried about unborn “children,” for lack of a better word, when there are millions alive who need help? Almost the entire continent of Africa is starving, for Zark’s sake! (Ok, generalization, still) People need more perspective. And I know I’ll be yelled at that it does matter, blah blah blah, so don’t even bother. I already know what you’ll say.
0
0
-
70
Axa
in February 28th, 2007 @ 19:13(67) Based on what? Do you have any reason behind that. or is it just a general statement? I have no opinion because I am not properly informed on any of the candidates
because I’m lazyand so give nothing to this conversation.
0
0
-
71
Otzi
in March 1st, 2007 @ 00:24Obama? I’ve read his autobiography. He’s awesome. He is an articulate, intelligent, poised guy, which is a whole lot more than you can say for our current president. And he takes a definite position on the war. Hillary’s a seasoned politician, but A) too many people dislike Bill and B) she’s waffling. I don’t know what’s in it for her, but she’s waffling. Watch her speeches. Waffle waffle waffle. It’s waffle city.
What makes me really annoyed is people who say ‘The terrorists want Obama to win’ I mean, come on. The man went to a secular, public school in Indonesia when he was NINE. HE IS NOT, NEVER HAS BEEN, AND NEVER WILL BE A RADICAL ISLAMIST. Sheeesh.On Abortion: *draws breath to rant* *reads penty’s post* OK, never mind. Penty said it already.
And that 200 pound 8 year old—That is abuse. It is a common assumption for parents to raise thier child on healthy food with decent excercise. It’s like potty training or brushing your teeth. I know I ate some things as a small child I’d never touch now- twinkies, for example- and that is because my parents taught me how to take care of myself s I grew up, involving me in physical activity and encourageing me to make healthy food choices. This child simply has not been taught moderation, which is a fundamental skill. His parents obviously arent up to the responsibility of raising a child, and so he shouldn’t be thiers to care for. They are putting his life in danger.
0
0
-
72
FrigidSymphony
in March 1st, 2007 @ 10:56Obama is awesome. No thanks to fox news for ‘mistakenly’ mispelling ‘osama’ ‘obama’ in a segment on al qaeda..
0
0
-
73
yesterday's_kinked_moose
in March 1st, 2007 @ 17:0762: You are a mass of cells. All i want to know is where you draw the line. Would you kill a prematurely born baby? This ends my contribution to the never-ending abortion debate. Somebody strangle me if i mention it again before at least six months.
Obama rules. Did anyone see the “blackness scale” weedend update on saturday night live? If not, go watch it on their website. That’s good stuff, and probably true. “There’s only so much blackness the American voter can take.”
0
0
-
74
dark duke of darkness
in March 1st, 2007 @ 17:4272-yeah lol.
0
0
-
75
yesterday's_kinked_moose
in March 1st, 2007 @ 21:17What the heck? How did that happen?
“I’ll exempt gods whom nobody worships,” eh? Well i just happen to be a faithful follower of the Great God Zeus. I can’t believe in this day and age Greek mythology is still not recognized as a legitimate religion. I have never been so offended in my life.
But seriously, thanks GAPA. If people are going to use a god’s/goddess’ name when they are not talking directly to him/her, the least they can do is use the name(s) of their own god(s). Or lack there of. Oh my mother nature!
0
0
-
76
Kiara
in March 2nd, 2007 @ 15:51One more thing on the abortion issue and premarital sex. People seem to overlook this simple fact rather readily in this discussion. The purpose of mating is to reproduce.
73 – Go Obama! I haven’t watched much TV lately, but I’ve heard a few things about that discussion with the skin color.
72 – Wow, wonder how they mispelled that….. Think that they might have something against him?
75 – Sweet religion. And no, I’m sorry, that I was not aware that there are still people that worship the Greek gods and godesses. It’s just that whenever I learn about something that happened in ancient history, it makes me think of it as “over”. Yes, even most of the Bible, my own religion being Christian. But this belongs on the Religions thread. *goes to new thread*
0
0
-
77
SupremeMuser2000, the All Mighty Queen of Museicalifornia
in March 2nd, 2007 @ 16:08Why are we talking about premarital sex?
0
0
-
78
curious and questioning
in March 2nd, 2007 @ 16:2277- See the Valentines’ thread.
0
0
-
79
Jadestone
in March 2nd, 2007 @ 17:54It got pretty heated there, so was moved there.
Sex is a choice on the parts of both the male or female (excluding rape), and I strongly support for people to choose for themselves. However, instead of telling us all not to ever have sex in health class, they should know that many, many people will and also teach safe sx. This would cut down on all the stuff people end up arguing over a lot…
Obama is cool. I agree with many of his points, I think he’d be a pretty good presedent. Unless we get Koko up ther of cource.
0
0
-
80
Lizzie
in March 2nd, 2007 @ 19:38Obama 08, yo!
76- hmm, good question – I wonder if the Republican propaganda news source does have something against the most promising Democratic candidate… nah, that sort of thing doesn’t happen in America.
0
0
-
81
Gaara of the Desert
in March 2nd, 2007 @ 21:17Go Hillary! first woman pres! w00t! or Obama! cuz he’d be the first black (sorry if that offends, i don’t know a better term) pres! w00t x 2!
0
0
-
82
Imperial Majesty Purple Panda the Apocalyptic of Giggleswick on the Naze
in March 2nd, 2007 @ 21:30I know we’re not really talking about this subject right now, but on Wednesday, I went to hear Gitanjali Gutierrez (the lead lawyer on the Guantanamo Bay cases) speak. It was absolutely amazing…and really interesting. Does anyone want to talk about Guantanamo Bay?
0
0
-
83
Gaara of the Desert
in March 3rd, 2007 @ 08:42if Hillary wins, Bill Clinton will be first lady!! hahaha!!
0
0
-
84
Gaara of the Desert
in March 3rd, 2007 @ 08:4716- i’m an atheist, so i don’t have to follow any stupid religious rules about premarital sex! yay!
0
0
-
85
FrigidSymphony
in March 3rd, 2007 @ 12:3483: No, he’d be first man.
0
0
-
86
Musketeer Number 5
in March 3rd, 2007 @ 14:55Obama isnt a strong enough politician!
*prepares to be jumped*
But really, he has pretty much no experience “being in charge of things”, he’s only ever been a senator and for minimal time too.
I agree, experience isnt necesary to do a good job, but Obama isnt doing great. He’s already said a few “dumb” things and then just apologizes.
He says 3000 lives wasted in Iraq (which IMO is true) but then he just backs down and apolgizes instead of saying something like: the soldiers=great, Bush just lied to them and sent them to their deaths for his own profit.
Right now it looks like he just cant control is tongue.I suppose he’s not an idoit though…i take that part of my post 67, everyone else the democrats are running are too weak and boring to win…
0
0
-
87
Shadowkat
in March 3rd, 2007 @ 15:2285-I’m pretty sure G of the D was being sarcastic.
I reference to the abortion debate, since I wasn’t here to participate: Alright, look, what if your mom was pregnant with you, and she decided to get an abortion? Now I know you’ll just say, “Well, then, I wouldn’t have known.” But the fact remains that you were denied life, and even the chance to have one. Kind of sad, isn’t it?
0
0
-
88
Elizabeth
in March 3rd, 2007 @ 15:4181- I don’t get that, about the term black being offensive. maybe they aren’t black, maybe they’re brownish, but I’m not white, and i’m not offended by being called white, and I wouldn’t want to be known as tannish or something. Also, since when is nigger “the n word” it’s just slang for negro or nigra which means black in spanish. Now this statement might seem radical, mean, un-politically correct, stereotypical… (I bet you all could think of all sorts of words for it) but, I think that black people get offended way too easily. Like in Social studies, we were learning about Africa and some kid saw the Niger river, so they say it nigger river, he didn’t know any better, but the one black kid in our class stood up, started shouting and banging around, threatened the kid to a fight etc just for that, then went down to detention.
It’s just wierd that we have to be all careful about offending certain races and all, have you ever noticed that when we read stories in English, they usually are about a minority? lots of black people stuff, poor people, kids w/ bad family structure, kids that are made fun of for being a different culture, the poor Jews during the Holocaust, all that stuff. Why don’t we read some about average americans, like white, normal family, no problem with religion etc. there’s nothing wrong with minoritys, they just get…idk, annoying.
as I said, not to offend anyone, but there’s my 2 cents
0
0
-
89
Musketeer Number 5
in March 3rd, 2007 @ 16:4688. I was talking to a friend (who’s “black”) about that. He said he didn’t want to be know as black or african american because that just made him a stat to make the school more diverse, with more minorities in honor classes.
He basically was saying why call anyone by the color of their skin, and not just their name. I think he has a really good point.
He also said that if he had to choose, he would pick african american since that’s his race, not just his color. He also said (and I agree) that it was dumb to single out different types of americans since we’re all americans…
0
0
-
90
yesterday's_kinked_moose
in March 3rd, 2007 @ 16:5176 Kiara: Um, you know i was kidding, right?
88 Elizabeth: In my experience, it’s mostly white people who care about that kind of stuff because they think black people do. But still, it doesn’t matter where words come from; it just matters what sort of connotation they have. Demeaning terms like that can be hurtful. So is our new topic race now? I’m game. Did anyone watch 30 Rock on Thursday?
0
0
-
91
cHill
in March 3rd, 2007 @ 18:15i’m fine with talking about race, but it doesn’t seem like it’s going anywhere. Now let’s try Imperial Majesty Purple Panda the Apocalyptic of Giggleswick on the Naze’s idea- Guantanamo Bay. I think it was a mistake to hold people in military prisons in the first place, but we do need to have a secure system.
0
0
-
92
Elizabeth
in March 3rd, 2007 @ 20:0391- yeah, we need a secure system, but who said anything about torture being part of secure. I think that was a very bad move of the gov’t, the idea of a prison is to get people out of trouble, so they no longer are trouble to other people, torturing them doesn’t help. Most people will probably disagree, but if a person has done something so bad that they deserve torture, they might as well be killed. I know lots of people are against the death sentence, but isn’t that better than torture.
along with torture, did anyone see the article in newsweek about America failing it’s veterans? It’s about how VA hospitals and other services that military veterans should get aren’t helping as much as they should, vet’s aren’t getting disability checks, medical (physical or mental) attention. This is torture of our own people, while I don’t think they had any reason being in Iraq killing people in the first place, some didn’t have a choice and others were doing what they thought was right and for that, they deserve the best we can give them.
0
0
-
93
FrigidSymphony
in March 4th, 2007 @ 06:3388: Again, only white people can be racist. How come when I say the n word I’m labelled a racist, but black rap artists can use it all the time? This is stupid, it’s racism in another form. Everyone’s too scared to make a mistake and a racist comment, and lots of black people just whine around and play the part of the victim, which gets on my nerves.
0
0
-
94
Shino Aburame
in March 4th, 2007 @ 09:3393-not true. being prejudiced against women is also a form of racism.
on a different topic, bush made a HUGE mistake in Iraq, but the troops are just as much a part of it as he is. there are bombings, shootings, and torture on innocent civilians daily, and they know that their victims are innocent, and the government neither knows nor approves of it.
71-Obama says that his campaign is not about him, it’s about america and it’s citizens. FALSE. this campaign is all about him and his huge ego. want my opinion on the presidential race?
GO HILLARY.
0
0
-
95
Purple Panda
in March 4th, 2007 @ 12:3394 – that would be more sexism, right? Or is that all categorized under race.
0
0
-
96
Kiara
in March 4th, 2007 @ 13:5190 – Wasn’t sure. People are so different from each other, and there probably is some group in this huge world that worships Zeus and everyone else.
93 – Kinda ironic. The rap artists are the ones using deragatory words for their own skin tone, but it’s only counted as prejudice if someones white. Well, then again, it would be rather hard to be considered prejudice against yourself, wouldn’t it?
94 – It would be pretty awesome to finally have a female president.
95 – I think so. Racism is because of race. And though some guys often seem to act as if they were a different species altogether, gender is not really race.
0
0
-
97
Shadowkat
in March 4th, 2007 @ 17:14Uh, guys? What about Christine Smith? She’s not Bush, she’s not a democrat or a republican, and she’s a woman…granted, she’s white (sorry to all the people who wanted a black, hispanic, oriental, etc. president), but you know what? Either way, she’s a change. If that’s what you’re looking for, go check out her site. Google her. She’s one of three people running to be the libertarian presidential candidate in 2008. At least check it out, okay?
0
0
-
98
Jadestone
in March 4th, 2007 @ 17:46Something I read in a column was when a ‘black’ woman wrote to the columist, complaining about how she is not African, so shouldn’t be considered ‘African American.’
0
0
-
99
Musketeer Number 5
in March 4th, 2007 @ 20:0393. Hypocritical huh??!!
My friends and I kid about race and stereotypes tons…crackers, mutts, wonderbread, n*****s, we’ve said them all to each other (we’re pretty diverse…) but none of us minds cause WE just see each other as kids.
A lot of people (esp. poorer whites and blacks) get really uptight about race and start yelling about other, usually richer, or better educated people being racist. Racism is way over used…
0
0
-
100
Axa
in March 5th, 2007 @ 17:43Wow okay so this morning in the paper it said that they decide on a place to test the new H-Bomb they’re making. “They” referring to the US government.
This baffles me. Here we are, the world police, yelling at North Kora and China and Iran about NUCLEAR=BAD!! and then it’s like hey, we’re making a new bomb that could kill you and to consolidate our stockpiles, don’t mind us.
I don’t know what to say. I feel only the deepest shame and dissappointment in my country.
0
0
-
101
cHill
in March 5th, 2007 @ 19:16100- How can they even go as far as to spend time inventing “new” H-Bombs?! Wasn’t the original bad enough? Hypocrite’s aren’t the best role models, but we go and try to solve everyone else’s problems too! Makes me want to move to Switzerland.
Is there anyone who feels that NUCLEAR doesn’t =BAD?
0
0
-
102
Shadowkat
in March 5th, 2007 @ 20:12Oh, I met someone who might have a radioactive bomb thing set off, like, right by where they live! And they were like, no way that’s happening…they say they won’t stand for it.
0
0
-
103
Axa
in March 5th, 2007 @ 21:29(101) I don’t even understand how they could even broach this topic. I really don’t.
(102) God, I would hope so. Me and my mom were so disgusted. People don’t freaking realize the long term effects this has. People were suffering from the radioactive fallout years after the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima…isn’t it enough? Isn’t it enough to see that once, to see a city reduced to ash, to see flesh melt away?
I don’t understand. I don’t understand how the leader of the country I live in could even utter a passing mention of such a thing. But no, him or his advisers must have been planning this all along.
It’s numbing.
0
0
-
104
Julieb
in March 6th, 2007 @ 18:43No, no, no. “H” stands for Hydrogen. The nuclear weapons we’ve got now (the ones we used during WWII) are made with plutonium and uranium(I can’t really be sure, but I believe that after WWII they decided not to build hydrogen bombs). The new ones will be much more deadly. The difference is fusion vs. fission. Ah, what a wonderful world we live in!
There was an article in our school paper about “self-racism,” how by labeling yourself using a racist term you are actually distancing yourself from stereotypes, whereas labeling someone else is considered forcing them into a stereotype. It was quite interesting. The great thing about america is that very few people fit into a stereotype. So many races have been intermixed over time that it’s hard to tell people apart just from the color of their skin. I don’t think I’ve ever really experianced any kind of predujice against me, living in the little shtettle that I do, an affluent mixed community that is very accepting of all people. The leading story in the most recent school paper was the disgust students had for pamphlets being handed out by “friends and families of ex-gays.”
0
0
-
105
cHill
in March 6th, 2007 @ 19:02On Race- Can America ever get rid of racism? It’s a country made up of immigrants, and every single time a new wave of nationalities comes in, the older groups attack them. It’s disgusting how we can’t learn from the past. The whole cycle was just complicated by slavery and racism against blacks.
0
0
-
106
Axa
in March 6th, 2007 @ 20:10(194) For a minute I was relieved but oh wow never mind that’s worse.
And about being an “ex-gay”. Oh my sweet lord that it such bull it’s not even funny. That churchleader who was found out ot be both a drug user and homosexual recently said that he went through therapy and is now cured of his homosexuality.
Does anyone even believe that? Does a single person even really believe that? How does that even work? As if homosexuality is some sort of disease. It’s pathetic.
0
0
-
107
Otzi
in March 7th, 2007 @ 21:17I feel sorry for Ted Haggard. I really do. He knows he’s gay, and he’s scared, so he turns his fear into hate. It’s sad.
0
0
-
108
davidude
in March 7th, 2007 @ 23:03100 – I agree. It’s like we’re saying to the world, “Don’t use nuclear weapons cuz they could hurt someone but we need to stockpile more than enough to blow up the planet in nuclear so we can just enforce stuff around here cuz we’re the richest country in the world and we rule this place”
0
0
-
109
FrigidSymphony
in March 8th, 2007 @ 14:16101: We welcome you with open arms. As long as you’re smart.
107: Don’t waste your sympathy on a filthy hypocrite like that. He’s one of the people who says “go kill homosexuals”. Well, after all, christians are supposed to hate the sin and love the sinner, and that’s just what he was doing… But honestly, screw him. He’s filth.
0
0
-
110
cHill
in March 8th, 2007 @ 16:50104- : oops : oops! I should’ve known that.
106/107/109- i tend to feel sorry for him too Otzi, but I don’t think that an outsider can really fully understand everything about him.
“filthy hypocrite”, and “filth” seem kind of strong for some one you’ve never met.
0
0
-
111
Axa
in March 8th, 2007 @ 17:57I actually agree more with FS here. I’m sure the environment he grew up in effected it, but no one is making you be a churchleader, no one is making you stay in a place that views homosexuals poorly. He must be really messed up in the head, honestly.
How was he doing that, FS? (I actually don’t know what you mean, I’m not being sarcastic. DX)
0
0
-
112
SM2K (too lazy to type full name)
in March 8th, 2007 @ 18:2693- Yep.
Whoaaaa…… did I just agree with FS?
0
0
-
113
FrigidSymphony
in March 9th, 2007 @ 13:52111: He preached against homosexuality, called his followers to kill gays. Then he was caught having sex with a male prostitute. OH SNAP!
0
0
-
114
Luna the Lovely
in March 9th, 2007 @ 14:36Ex-gay?????? That’s is the stupidest term ever. It implies that there is something wrong with a person being homosexual, like it’s some sort of disease, or choice. But, personally, I think that’s just the way a person is born. I don’t think gay people have any more control over liking the same sex than I have over being attracted to the male speceis (and despite the fact that guys tend to be so annoying at times, I still attracted to ’em), but despite it not, iin my opinion, being a choice, it’s not a disease either.
I think gay people are just as normal as anybody else, and that there’s nolthing wrong with them liking people of the same sex. I also think that gays should be allowed to get married in all states (here in alaska, i think there’s an amendment to our constitution that forbids gay marriage. and sometime in the spring people are going to vote on whether gay couples should be given the same benefits as a heterosexual married couple, or something to that effect.) I think they should be allowed to get married and then given the exact same benefits as any married couple
I was getting into an argument about this with my sister (she’s almost 19) the other day. She approves of the fact that they’re not allowed to get married. She think that being sexually interested in people of the same sex is ‘unnatural’ and sinful. When I pointed out that similar things happen in other species(I read something somewhere that said sometimes male ravens (I think it was ravens and not something else) would choose to spend their lives with another male instead of taking a female as a mate), she replied to the effect of ‘So, that just shows that other species have fallen just like man has by eating the apple’. It’s just like, bloody hell, stop it with the stupid mediaeval christian religious viewpoints. If god exists, he is a bloody bastard who doesn’t give a damn about anybody on earth. (No offence to anybody who’s christian (unless you think homosexuality is wrong and sinful)) I was never that religious, but after Nov 19 (my dog had got stuck trying to escape from out porch and was hanging upside down by her hips for who knows how long while we were at the stupid HP and the GoF movie) when I prayed all night long, in and out of sleep in a NyQuil drug haze (I had a cold) ‘Please don’t let her die, god, please don’t let her die’. And I was waken up by mom in the morning only to be told that Amy had died, I’ve lost just about any amount of religiousness I’ve ever had. If such a entity as god exists, he is a horible bastard and I hate him and I don’t htink I’ll ever forgive him for letting Amy die. Anyway, christian people and their issuues with homosexuality is just another reason in my opinion that god if he exists is an idiotic bastard.
I think that not allowing equal rights for gays (including marriage) is discriminatory and prejudice. It’s just as wrong as being discriminating towards people because of theire skin colour or anything else. i mean, gays have just as much control over liking those of the same sex as an African American has of being born with dark skin. (To which a certain close minded sister replied that they have much more control about being gay than people do over theire sking colour and that it is a choice even if subconscious. And anyway, I love my sister, but I think she is being an absolute idiot on this subject.)
Anyways, not quite sure why I care so much. I mean, I’m not gay myself (not that there would be anything wrong with me if I was) and I don’t know anybody who is (leastways, if I do, I don’t know they’re gay), so I just am not quite sure why I feel so passionately about it. But I do.
Sorry, that was really long.
0
0
-
115
FrigidSymphony
in March 9th, 2007 @ 14:50114: By Thor, someone after my own heart! Hmm, I wish I lived in a christian area in the states. The only arguing I get done is on this blog, and it’s all written, not verbal, so I don’t keep my talent up. Needless to say there’s no arguing going on here, as everyone agrees with me, and the priests learned long ago to avoid me. I verbally destroyed some a few years ago and now the pretend they don’t see me. Of course, it doesn’t help that I go into the bookstore run by devout catholics who always have moronic religious books saying how heavy metal is the devil’s music and sending you to hell and making you gay downtown and say in a loud voice “Excuse me, do you have the SATANIC BIBLE by Anton Szandor LaVey???”. The looks I get… priceless. For everything else (including satanic bibles) there’s mastercard.
0
0
-
116
Luna the Lovely
in March 9th, 2007 @ 16:26115: Are you feeling alright? You’re actually agreeing with somebody. And more specifically you’re agreeing with me! (Just joking. No offence meant.
)As my sister just said to seconds ago (she’s working on homework for her religion class at college) and being righteous is good and wicked is bad or something that was really stupid sounding ’cause it was sort of obvious. Of course wicked is bad and so of course I said ‘yeah, but the bible’s idea of what’s good is narrowminded. So she wanted an example, so I pointed out that the bible says homosexuality is wrong and that if a man sleeps with another man they should both be killed’ and found her wherever it is in leviticus that it says that, and cited that as an example. And she’s like, but it is wrong and that she believe that everything says in the bible is true, and if the bible says it’s wrong, of course it’s wrong. She takes the word of a bunch of idiots froom ancient times way to seriously. I mean, even if there was a Jesus, I don’t think he’s really dictating to people what to write and that everything in the bible is originally by him or whatever it is psycho christians believe. People in ancient times thought the earth was flat and that the planets and sun revolved around the earth, but they were wrong, so they could just as likely be wrong that homosexuality is wrong, and in fact, they were/are/whatever. There is nothing wrong with homosexuals!!!!!
Sorry, I needed to vent…
0
0
-
117
Shadowkat
in March 9th, 2007 @ 16:31Whoa, whoa, whoa! Ex-gayness?! It’s a friggin’ myth! There’s no such thing! At least, psychologically speaking…you’re either gay, or your not. That’s like Ellen Degeneres’ (or however you spell her name) former partner. She left Ellen to get married to a guy and have kids…obviously, something was a lie. It’s just stupid…but, unless they want to change the meaning of the word “marriage”, gay people can’t get married. It’s defined as a union between a man and a woman (not quoted), so two men or two women “getting married” don’t fall under that category. They can, however, become legally joined…just not in “holy matrimony”.
0
0
-
118
Luna the Lovely
in March 9th, 2007 @ 16:45106, yeah, people believe that. My sister thinks that it’s possible for people to change their personalities and no longer be gay. When I read the one post about ex-gays to her, she said that obviously they exist. But I think they’re just hypocrites and to cowardly to admit that they’re still gay and just pretending not to be so peole will accept them (and my sister also says that she feels that they can be ‘saved and go to heaven’ even if they don’t change their sexual orientation. Ouch. That’s just insulting in my opinion.)
0
0
-
119
Jadestone
in March 9th, 2007 @ 16:56115- *cracks up* Oh man that is hilarious!!
We got into this really heated debate in Bio over Evolution v. Creationism(well, untill the teacher makes us stop beacus we’re not supposed to have those discusions durring class. We didn’t pay attention and just kept it going through the lecture(maybe that’s why I got a B- on the test, heh heh heh…)) and it was aeriously intense. It was me, Lianna, and Chris on the Evol. sde and Trevor, JD, and Josh on the Creationism side. So JD brought in this DVD and gave it to our table, and it supposedly disproves evolution. So Chris took it home first and watched it, then he wrote this 5-paged paper on why it’s wrong on many points and gave copies to all of us. The Eugine got in on the creationism side and the debate is continuing. Lianna has the DVD now, but when I get it I’ll be sure to rant about it.
0
0
-
120
Elizabeth
in March 9th, 2007 @ 17:47116- I’m a christian but I don’t believe we should take the bible literally, especially not the old testament. It’s a little hard to explain and this isn’t really the place, there’s a religions thread for this and…and… wow, I’m reading more of your post and decide not to even bother arguing
I disagree with most of it, but it’s ok, that’s what you believe
118-are you saying that there’s something wrong with being gay? it’s not like that person can help it, you should cut them a little slack, they are entitled to their preferences and opinions of what’s right just like you are
0
0
-
121
Musketeer Number 5
in March 10th, 2007 @ 10:30114. A vote shouldnt be neccassary to allow gays to marry, be legal partners, watever… the only reasons against it are those posed by the religious right. They are only trying to appease voters who want a good Christian in office as opposed to a good person and their own warped sense of right and wrong.
So basically the fact that gays cant marry breaks the first ammendment.
But whatever, our whole constitution is going down the toilette…welcome to fascist america
0
0
-
122
FrigidSymphony
in March 10th, 2007 @ 11:03Look, whenever you get into a discussion about creationism with some bible thumping right wing christian nuts, don’t try to rationalize. It won’t work. You’ve got to take a radical dogmatic stand against the greater dogma. Tell him that all the scientists and the smartest people in the world say that teaching creationism is like teaching the stork theory in sex ed. Tell ’em it’s just a damfool “scientific” sounding labelling of religious bullshit, and that… Well, actually if you print out my arguments in the religion thread you could pretty much destroy them, it’s all true.
116:Yes, I know I’m agreeing with you. There are other things besides Harry Potter, however great his stupidity may be. I also agree with you here. The Bible is violent and hatred inducing. Jesus never meant that stuff, it was compiled looong after his time to impose regulations. The Seven Deadly SIns? Basic human instects made sinful by the church. So people inevitably find themselves sinning, and having to turn to the church for “salvation” (usually arranged after generous donations).
121: You know, not to sound pompous, arrogant or anything, but we were saying that since 2000. We being Europeans. Why don’t you impeach the bastards????
0
0
-
123
Julieb
in March 10th, 2007 @ 11:41114- I agree with you, on most points anyway. I do have gay friends, and you can’t control it. There’s a theory that it’s the hormone levels in the womb that determine sexual preference.
0
0
-
124
hypermoocow
in March 10th, 2007 @ 13:06i odnt really believe that theory because i know some people who like boys when they were teens and girls when they were grownups or vice versa
0
0
-
125
FrigidSymphony
in March 10th, 2007 @ 13:17And some homosexuals become repressed and self hating people.
0
0
-
126
Lizzie
in March 10th, 2007 @ 13:28124- many people, especially girls, don’t realize they’re actually gay/lesbians until they’re older. I think it’s fairly common for boys to realize it in high school, but many girls don’t realize it until they’re much older, and possibly are married, etc.
0
0
-
127
e~a dhe sok monkey
in March 10th, 2007 @ 13:30I think that both straight and gay couples should have the same amount of legal rights. I mean, why not? you don’t have to call it marriage if that’s what you don’t like but there should be some sort of rights given to any two people who wish to live together. Once they have their rights, they can go to a church and become married. If the US is preventing gay marriage for the sole reason that “we don’t like it because it’s against the christian definition of marriage” then there is no separation of church and state. If a christian church wants to prevent marriage, fine. That should be each seperate church’s decision. The country should not be denying the legal rights of marriage to anyone.
and how in the world would one become “ex-gay”? that’s the silliest thing I’ve heard. One is what one is, and both gay and straight are perfectly normal just different from each other. I have plenty of gay and bi friends and I’m in my school’s GSA (gay straight alliance) by the way. (hee hee, gsa and by the way rhyme) more on this subject later.
0
0
-
128
Shadowkat
in March 10th, 2007 @ 16:05Realize? What’s to realize? Either you know how to be a sane human being, or you don’t…you don’t just all of a sudden say, “Hm, you know, I don’t care if it’s completely abnormal and weird, I think maybe I like guys/girls more than I should, so I’ll just be gay/lesbian.” And, alright, maybe it does, but it shouldn’t, and what bugs me even more is when they’re like, “It’s genetic.” Genetic, my a**! If it was genetic, the gays and lesbians would never be able to reproduce, and thereby would never be able to pass on that gene. It doesn’t make any sense.
0
0
-
129
Elizabeth
in March 10th, 2007 @ 16:59122- because we can’t impeach them, only congress can. and if he were impeached, who would take over? Cheney, and he’s already basically the one running our country along with lots of others. I mean, it takes brains to figure out how to do all that America is doing… and I hope you would agree that bush couldn’t be the one with all those brains. So Bush isn’t even so much our problem as his administration is and you can’t exactly impeach a whole administration
0
0
-
130
hypermoocow
in March 10th, 2007 @ 17:05i think we should impeach bush and elect a HPB
0
0
-
131
Jadestone
in March 10th, 2007 @ 21:22Agreed. Gay people should definatly be alowed to marry. See my post (sround 130) on the spereation of church and state on the religios thread. It’s so dumb!! I wish I lived in Canada.
0
0
-
132
fellowmuser
in March 10th, 2007 @ 21:44130- I like the way you think.
POPO~
Now, I’ve just read the posts, and I think that everybody who has posted should just take a deeeep breath. In, and out. Good.
0
0
-
133
Julieb
in March 10th, 2007 @ 23:20128- As I stated before, intrinsic not genetic.
0
0
-
134
FrigidSymphony
in March 11th, 2007 @ 06:14If you impeach bush, no way is Cheney or anyone else from that group leading. You impeach the whole party and get a democrat in there.
0
0
-
135
Shadowkat
in March 11th, 2007 @ 09:06133-Well, as far as I know, you can’t inherit something unless it’s genetic….
134-No, no, we want a libertarian!
0
0
-
136
Julieb
in March 11th, 2007 @ 10:35135 INTRINSIC is not inheriteD, but inhereNT, you are born with it because of the hormone levels in the womb, not because it’s automatically in your genes because of your mother or father. Just because your parents didn’t have abnormal levels or estrogen or testosterone when they were fetus’ doesn’t mean you won’t.
0
0
-
137
Elizabeth
in March 11th, 2007 @ 11:25134- if a president gets impeached the VP takes over, don’t they?
0
0
-
138
Jadestone
in March 11th, 2007 @ 13:43134- That reminds me of in 7th grade, when we aked “If bush dies, and then cheney dies, who gets in?” And we kept going and she kept listing names till someone just asked “Why are there no competent people in the White House?? Where are all the democrats?”
0
0
-
139
emmatheduck, Pwner and Head Quack of Canardquisouritistan
in March 11th, 2007 @ 14:01138-but I think now after Bush and Cheney isn’t it…..ummm…..my brain isn’t working right now. but i’m pretty sure it’s a democrat.
0
0
-
140
Robert Coontz (Administrator)
in March 11th, 2007 @ 14:06Third in line for the presidency is the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi.
0
0
-
141
Zallie
in March 11th, 2007 @ 14:12140 – Yesindeed, but I don’t think the Speaker has ever had to become president. Bush and Cheney are not going to die.
0
0
-
142
Shadowkat
in March 11th, 2007 @ 16:17136-Oh, ok…I was a bit unsure about the meaning of “intrinsic”, so I looked it up, but I must’ve misunderstood the definition…sorry.
138-Democrats are NO better than republicans, and republicans are NO better than democrats…by this point, they’ve pretty much become the same thing…libertarians are the REAL conservatives. You shouldn’t be asking, “Where are the democrats?”…the question should be, “Where are the libertarians?”…the only problem is, nobody knows about them, so they never get noticed, because the other two suppress them and the other smaller parties…it’s really frustrating!
0
0
-
143
Lizzie
in March 11th, 2007 @ 16:58141- well, actually they will. So will you. So will I. So will everyone on the blog. So will everyone you know. It might take a really long time, but yes, eventually they will die.
0
0
-
144
Musketeer Number 5
in March 11th, 2007 @ 17:50122. Actually, in 2000, the majorty of of Americans agreed with “you guys” too. Then the majority of “them” decide Bush had done such a great job that he should be allowed another term. O, no you did not sound pompous (for once), I personally think it’s time to sratch my dual citizenship and become only Canadian…
134. You impeach Bush, then Cheney, then Pelosi is next in line. She’s a democrat, and since other democrats voted for her she cant be that bad…(o just saw GAPA post but dont feel like hitting delet key)
142. I have to disagree. Yes there are democrats who arent any better than republicans but you don’t see any democrats telling people that God speaks to them, telling them the right path…
0
0
-
145
Shadowkat
in March 11th, 2007 @ 18:31144-Well, I haven’t seen libertarians doing that, either…why, have you?
0
0
-
146
nerdz__r00l
in March 11th, 2007 @ 20:26131-To tell you the truth, I kind of like that, because i’m a n athiest, so whenever some christian people start preaching on the streets, I get kind of uncomfortable. I think that what’s the diffrence between all the different religions? Don’t they have the exact same amount of proof that they exist?
0
0
-
147
davidude
in March 11th, 2007 @ 22:42146 – No. Some religions have less proof than others. And there is SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO much difference between religions that, i dunno…i remember when I thought that Hinduism and Bhuddism were the same thing…now I find out they’re so different they’re like seperate universes. Look at some Religion threads on MuseBlog, and you’ll learn lots. I did.
0
0
-
148
Elizabeth
in March 12th, 2007 @ 17:39141- I wouldn’t be so sure of that… not that i’m planning something or anything, but there are so many people that dislike Bush in the world, if he got impeached ( or assasinated , for that matter) then we have Cheney, and he’s been complaining about blood clots and other health problems, so if he gets thrown into such a stressful position as presidency must be, well, he might have a heart attack or something and, there’s Nancy Pelosi, that’d be cool. She’s not half bad
142- you don’t live in Vermont, do you? (I think I remember you saying you lived somewhere else…) but anyway, Vermont is so Liberal, Democrat, left wing etc etc You’d probably like it. I went there for a conference a while ago and their political leaders are very left wing, it’s pretty cool, and everyone seems to like them.has anyone heard about how Bush visited the Mayan temple, then when he left they had to call some Mayan priests in to cleanse it of evil spirits and imbalances. No joke, it’s true.
0
0
-
149
Musketeer Number 5
in March 12th, 2007 @ 18:04145. I’m not saying libertarians are bad, in fact they’re way better than republicans….they just don’t have enough money to win a presidential election, so if they run the democrats are screwed…(sorta like Nadar in 2000).
0
0
-
150
Shadowkat
in March 13th, 2007 @ 15:51148-No, you see, I don’t like democrats OR republicans…and I live in MI.
149-Well, maybe if more people knew about them, they would get more money, and thereby win the election…see, the problem is, most people figure that they have to choose between the lesser of two evils (democrats and republicans), because, the way they see it, why waste their vote? But what they don’t think about is, if all the people who don’t want to waste their vote actually voted libertarian, they wouldn’t have “wasted” it, because the libertarians would get more votes, and quite possibly win. But at least they would be back on the map…and even if you don’t see all their campaign ads, signs, etc., you can’t tell me that, when someone looks at the ballot, they don’t at least see where the libertarian is on it. Sorry, that was really long…and kinda hard to follow…but do you get it?
0
0
-
151
Purple Panda
in March 13th, 2007 @ 19:30I’m an editor for my school’s newspaper, and I was assigned to write an article about the 2008 presidential election. I wrote it in 1 afternoon…what do you think? (It’s meant to be purely informative)
Despite the fact that the first Presidential Primary election is almost a year away, they are already getting amazing amounts of publicity. On November 4th, 2008, the 44th president of the United States will be elected. It will end the two-term span of George W. Bush’s presidency. Among many new things, this election will be the first election in eighty years without an incumbent. Vice President Dick Cheney has already declared that he has no plans to run for office in this election.
Three of the main Democratic candidates seeking the Presidency in the 2008 election are Senator Hillary Clinton of New York, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, and former Senator John Edwards of North Carolina. Hillary Clinton would be the first woman nominee of a major political party. She has been said to be a polarizing figure: either you like her, or you hate her. Some of Clinton’s main focuses are the Iraq war and health care. Although she voted in favor of the Iraq war in 2002, she is now opposed to it. Clinton also supports universal health care and stem cell research.
Senator Barack Obama agrees with Clinton on health care and stem-cell research, but has had a different history with the Iraq war. In 2002, Obama opposed the Iraq Resolution, unlike many other Democrats, but he was not a part of the Senate at that time and not able to vote. Obama is still against the war and introduced the Iraq War De-Escalation Act of 2007 to congress. Obama is also working on renewable energy laws. One of his goals is for the United States to achieve energy independence so importing foreign oil will not be necessary.
Former Senator John Edwards ran for president in the 2004 election. He lost in the primaries, but went on to become John Kerry’s running mate. Edwards has taken his support for universal health care a step further, and created a detailed plan for instituting health care in America. One of Edwards’ main campaigns is focused on global warming. “Global warming is an emergency and we can’t wait until the next president is elected to take action.†His first goal for the slowing of global warming is to decrease carbon emissions. Edwards, like Clinton, voted for the 2002 resolution authorizing President Bush to go to war and continued to defend his position through the 2004 elections. But he now says that his vote was a big mistake and favors complete withdrawal of the troops.
Three of the main Republican candidates seeking presidency in the 2008 election are Senator John McCain of Arizona, former Governor Mitt Romney of Massachusetts, and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani. Senator John McCain ran against President Bush in both the 2000 and 2004 Republican primaries. McCain supports the Iraq war, and defends the troop surge decision made by President Bush. McCain also strongly believes we need to take action against global warming. “There is no doubt; failure to act is the far greater risk.â€
Former Governer Mitt Romney, up until recently, did not believe global warming was happening. He now believes that the United States should lower greenhouse gas emmissions, but has not made the environment a major part of his political platform. Romney agrees with McCain regarding the Iraq war, and believes sending more troops to Iraq will improve the situation. Romney is against same-sex marriage and abortion, and universal health care run by the government.
Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani will be running for president for the first time in 2008. Some issues Giuliani has commented on are global warming and various social policies. Giuliani believes there is global warming, but does not believe much of it is caused by human intervention. Giuliani has always been opposed to same-sex marriage, and favors capital punishment.
Presidential candidates are traveling the country, giving speeches and meeting with citizens, already gathering supporters. Whether America will elect the first woman president, the first African-American president, or a longtime congressman, America is preparing for the election.
0
0
-
152
nerdz__r00l
in March 13th, 2007 @ 19:55147, actually, I meant to say that religions maybe just the same on the outside, but on the inside they all have common concepts-divinity, heaven, most have punishement for following a religion different from them.
0
0
-
153
Luna the Lovely
in March 14th, 2007 @ 13:25120, no I’m not saying I think there’s anything wrong with gays. I believe there just as normal as anybody else, and couldn’t care less if they’re attracted to people of the same sex. I was saying that some people (NOT me) believe that it’s possible to be ex-gay.
And also, my sister said that just ’cause the old testament says something (such as kill gays) doesn’t mean you should necessarily follow it, but then she pointed out that in the new testament, it also says gayness is wrong, so therefore in her opinion, gayness is wrong.
I hope you realise that everything I was saying my sister believes is NOT what I believe. I do not think the bible is right about gays. I do not think there is anything wrong with gays. I think my sister is an overly religious nutso who takes a book written ages ago way to seriously. I think gays are just the same as anybody else.
0
0
-
154
FrigidSymphony
in March 14th, 2007 @ 13:32Democrats are FAR better than republicans. Can you imagine what the last 6 years would have been like if Gore had won (as he legally should have)? No Iraq war, much bigger awareness of global warming… The world would be a much, much better place.
And yes, I’m aware that Gore was actually a “republicrat”.
0
0
-
155
Shadowkat
in March 14th, 2007 @ 14:40151-What about the Libertarian candidates? And the Green Party candidates? And the multitude of other parties’ candidates? Sorry, but it really frustrates me how much information is being left out of your guys’ education.
154-No, they’re NOT. Yeah, we wouldn’t have any cars, ’cause it would harm the environment. The only good thing about Gore being president would be that 9/11 might not have happened.
Has anyone seen the video of the BBC report where they were talking about the fact that World Trade Tower 7 had fallen down before it actually did? Clearly, someone knew it was going to happen, and leaked it to the press.
0
0
-
156
Purple Panda
in March 14th, 2007 @ 16:20155 – I’m extremely well informed about the other parties, and I know a lot about them. My assignment for this article, however, was just to cover the two major parties. There will be other articles about the minor parties.
0
0
-
157
Axa
in March 14th, 2007 @ 20:12The most insulting thing I have heard recently is that someone “doesn’t hate liberals” she “just hates their opinions”.
…….um excuse me isn’t that basically the same thing? It’s like, I hate your ideals and everything you stand for, but I don’t hate you. What do you guys think? If someone said that about conservatives I would think the same thing, by the way, not just me being annoying.
I’m going to vote for people, not parties.
0
0
-
158
Elizabeth
in March 15th, 2007 @ 16:25151- that’s a good aricle, very short, consice, and informative, also unlikely to cause any argument or anything
0
0
-
159
FrigidSymphony
in March 16th, 2007 @ 12:47155: Oh yes we would be. We’d have cars, just not hummers and 4 wheel drives. Although I personally wouldn’t mind not having cars. Democratic party >>>>>>>>>>>> Republican party.
0
0
-
160
hypermoocow
in March 16th, 2007 @ 16:30i like the really tiny one or 2 people cars. those are sweet!
0
0
-
161
Purple Panda
in March 17th, 2007 @ 07:33160 – are you talking about Smart cars? If I ever get a car, which I probably won’t because I can’t ever see myself driving, I’ll probably get a Smart car…
0
0
-
162
FrigidSymphony
in March 17th, 2007 @ 07:45Smart cars are swiss, therefore good. End of discussion.
0
0
-
163
Elizabeth
in March 17th, 2007 @ 10:56162- you are sooooooo biased (not meant in a bad way) everything swiss has to be good…
0
0
-
164
FrigidSymphony
in March 17th, 2007 @ 13:12163: Is it my fault that the swiss are know for making quality goods that never break?
0
0
-
165
Elizabeth
in March 17th, 2007 @ 19:01164- no, I just found it funny that swiss things are always good, according to you (as I said, not in a bad way, it just amuses me…)
did you know about how the swiss army used to require every soldier to have a 5 pound piece of chocolate with them at all times, like part of their uniform? It’s so that if they got lost or something they could use that to live off of for quite a while because chocolate has so much energy in it. I thought that was pretty cool, chocolate being required in the army…
0
0
-
166
Musketeer Number 5
in March 18th, 2007 @ 15:18Hey, when I talk to people about Hilary Clinton as president, a lot of people, especially guys or republicans say they’d move to mexico if she were elected. Does anyone get why this is?
I like Obama better than her, I think she’s kinda boring, maybe not super strong but WAY better than Bush…Her campaign is pretty normal, democratic, nothing extraodianry, so why do all these guys hate HER with such a passion. Are they sexist (even subconsiously) and just don’t a woman president or is there some horrible condeming feature about her that I’m missing? Please, someone explian!
0
0
-
167
Purple Panda
in March 18th, 2007 @ 15:32Hillary Clinton is extremely polarizing. (I said this in my article). There was an article in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette last week about her called, “Love her, hate her, there’s no in between.”
Love her or hate her; there’s no in between on Hillary Clinton
What is it about the complicated, outspoken senator and former First Lady that enrages some people and enthuses others?
Sunday, March 11, 2007
Jim Watson, Getty Images
Mackenzie Carpenter
Pittsburgh Post-GazetteIt was the kind of week Hillary Rodham Clinton likes best — packed with serious policy speeches, adulation from supporters and up-close encounters with voters outside the nation’s capital.
Online Poll Cast your ballot in our online poll on why people have such strong feelings about Hillary Clinton
In Selma, Ala., last Sunday, the junior senator from New York and Democratic presidential candidate marched with her husband Bill Clinton, who is still wildly popular with black voters, and gave a rousing speech to churchgoers — even as her rival, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, attracted larger crowds.
On Tuesday, she was back on her own, cheered at a luncheon sponsored by Emily’s List, the nation’s largest women’s campaign fund, followed by a speech Thursday calling for a GI’s Bill of Rights in the wake of the Walter Reed Army Hospital scandal before heading back to New Hampshire over the weekend.
Contrast that to two weeks earlier, when former First Friend and Hollywood movie mogul David Geffen called Mrs. Clinton “incredibly polarizing” and predicted that she couldn’t win the White House in 2008, even though she continues to lead the field of Democratic contenders.
No person in public life today provokes such extreme reactions wherever she goes — except perhaps the man currently sitting in the Oval Office.
What is it about Hillary Rodham Clinton that so incenses people — or so excites them?
Political experts cite several factors that will influence how voters resolve their feelings about Mrs. Clinton in the coming months: her unique history as first lady and U.S. senator, her politics, her personality, her husband, and her gender.
“She’s a complicated, outspoken woman,” said Susan K. Flinn, who edited the 2000 anthology “Speaking of Hillary: A Reader’s Guide to the Most Controversial Woman in America.”
“She’s said herself that she’s a Rorschach test, that people project their own issues onto,” said Ms. Flinn, “and it’s true. Sometimes their reactions, though, simply leave the realm of reason. It frankly would have been easier for her to run if she hadn’t been first lady and wasn’t married to the president. She could have had her own political career much earlier.”
Ah, yes, her husband. Bill Clinton’s political brilliance and personal baggage — the Monica Lewinsky scandal for starters — will work for her and against her. While including him as a full partner in Selma, the next day Mrs. Clinton predicted the public would not be seeing “that much” of him during the campaign.
Then there are her centrist politics: from her vote to authorize the war in Iraq to her support for criminalizing flag burning, which infuriated the left wing of the Democratic party — even as some moderates say they don’t quite believe she’s one of them.
To complicate matters, she has a less-than-electric presence on the stump and on television; her public persona is frequently described by critics as scripted and rehearsed even as others call her warm, empathetic and friendly.
Finally, and perhaps most important: she’s female. This past week, her campaign announced a new effort to appeal to women voters that includes a Web site, http://www.icanbepresident.com, aimed at younger women.
While nearly two-thirds of Americans say they are ready for a woman president, it’s an issue Mrs. Clinton and her campaign advisers are negotiating carefully.
“Certainly, this election will determine whether we will break a barrier,” said Melanne Verveer, former chief of staff for Mrs. Clinton when she was first lady. “But I think there’s a growing comfort level with the fact that our judgment about who we elect as our leaders shouldn’t be based on sex.”
Yet her candidacy seems to be very much about gender. A March 7 Quinnipiac Poll of three swing states — Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida — found that more women support her than men, by margins ranging from 12 to 17 percentage points, and a similarly large female-male divide — 47 to 33 percent — was reflected in a Keystone Poll from late February.
Still, while her campaign hopes her historic candidacy will energize the female vote, many women also seem to be having trouble with her.
Melinda Henneberger, author of the upcoming book, “If They Only Listened to Us: What Women Voters Want Politicians To Hear,” found in her 18 months of research that women across the political spectrum expressed strong doubts about Mrs. Clinton.
“Rightly or wrongly, there was a feeling she was too poll-tested and not altogether sincere,” said Ms. Henneberger. What was most interesting were “women in the middle who didn’t like her. These are not people who live and breathe politics, but they did have strong visceral feelings about Sen. Clinton, and it most often came down to what one young woman told me in Florida, ‘I don’t feel the realness from her.’ ”
Residue from ’92
Such ambivalence can be traced back to how the country first got to know Hillary Clinton. During her husband’s 1992 race, she was forced to defend him on charges of womanizing and uttered her first gaffe insisting she wasn’t “some little woman standing by her man like Tammy Wynette.” When, as first lady — a position that carries no job description but plenty of differing expectations — she entered the public policy arena, tackling the huge, intractable problem of health care reform, there was grumbling that she only got that job because she was married to the president, Ms. Verveer said, “even though she was a lawyer and an activist on behalf of children with a whole bunch of skill sets her predecessors didn’t have.”But then her health care reform plan, crafted in secret, died from a thousand cuts from a thousand interest groups, and the first lady withdrew to lick her wounds.
When she reemerged, though, the public was never quite sure who she was, because she would never say.
“There seemed to be this concerted effort to push her into a traditional mode of what we thought a first lady should be,” said Elizabeth Ossoff, a professor of political psychology at St. Anselm College in Manchester, N.H. “She made a lot of mistakes along the way.”
Still, when she decided to stay with her husband after the Monica Lewinsky scandal, her critics chalked it up to unbridled ambition. But many others respected her for it, as well as her overseas work.
By the time her husband left office in 2000, she was at the height of her popularity, which fueled a successful bid for the U.S. Senate and her overwhelming reelection last year. Now it will be important for voters in the presidential election to see what New York voters were able to see, said Ms. Verveer.
Indeed, Lynn Marinelli, a New York State legislator and a Democrat from Erie County, says she has frequently observed Mrs. Clinton’s skills during the past six years.
At one visit to a shopping mall in suburban Buffalo, not exactly a Democratic stronghold, “Sen. Clinton walked into the food court in the middle of the day, and she didn’t have to step five more feet when people started coming toward her to greet her. She comported herself with such grace and dignity and eye contact. She held their gaze, didn’t shift from one foot to the other, which I certainly would have done. I know her husband is known for connecting with people, but she did it, too.”
Not every western New Yorker has been so entranced by their junior senator.
“She made my skin crawl, frankly, although of course my take was different from most of the people who showed up,” said James Campbell, chair of the political science department at the University at Buffalo/State University of New York and an avowed conservative Republican. At one appearance, “she was saying things that were outright nonsense, that she had all this political experience, when she had no experience other than being first lady,” he said.
Mr. Campbell’s fellow Republican, Kevin Hardwick, host of a radio show in Buffalo, doesn’t quite agree.
“There were these terrible fears that she would be this left-wing wacko, but she didn’t move there, she moved to the center,” Mr. Hardwick said.
It isn’t clear if Mrs. Clinton will be able to make that same kind of intimate connection with voters in a national presidential campaign. Already she’s come under fire for awkwardness on the stump, most recently for what some said sounded like an attempt at a Southern drawl in the delivery of her speech in Selma.
“She has that flat voice,” noted Ms. Flinn. “But she’s a lot like Al Gore, of whom they said, ‘If you can get him alone in a room with five people, they’ll walk across shattered glass for him.’ ”
TV may not be kind. “She may not be the right person for a media age that requires a certain telegenic quality in their presidential candidates,” said Leonard Steinhorn, a political science professor at American University in Washington, D.C.
Television also has a way of magnifying the slightest gaffe, and even Mrs. Clinton herself has said, “I cannot make a mistake,” noted Letty Cottin Pogrebin, an author, activist and founding editor of Ms. Magazine.
“She’s very careful, and when she isn’t, she gets slaughtered,” says Ms. Pogrebin. “Everything she says is dissected and picked apart, from her hairdo to her marriage. Every aspect of public presentation has been examined and critiqued, so no wonder that she’s gun shy.”
As a feminist, Ms. Pogregin strongly supports the senator’s presidential bid, but as a staunch anti-war activist, she admits to being frustrated with Mrs. Clinton’s vote on Iraq — an issue where gender has been a hindrance, not a help.
Problems in pink
One of the few times Mrs. Clinton seemed to almost publicly lose her composure was in 2002, in a meeting with about 50 members of Code Pink, a women’s anti-war group, just before the Iraq vote. Standing behind a wall of tables, her body language tense but her voice calm, she tried to explain her position to the women, who were clad in pink slips. After she refused to back down, one of the women threw her pink slip at the senator. Visibly angry, Mrs. Clinton shook a finger at them, declaring she would never do anything that would put her constituents in harm’s way, and strode out, as a chorus of female voices shouted, “You are! You are!”“She’s a very calculating politician,” said Medea Benjamin, one of Code Pink’s founders, who said her group is perhaps harder on Mrs. Clinton on this issue than on other candidates because she’s a woman. “She’s one of the most powerful leaders in this country, she’s the front-runner and plus, we expect women leaders to represent the views and values of women, who by more than 10 percentage points oppose our having gone to war.”
Ms. Benjamin’s use of “calculating” — which, along with “cold,” is a label frequently attached to the senator, unfairly, say some.
“Tell me a man who’s run for office who isn’t in some sense cold and calculating,” said Ms. Pogrebin.
“She is tough, but you have to be absle to answer criticism and spring back, and she does that remarkably well.”
Today, Mrs. Clinton seems to have found her comfort level as a senator, more so than when she was ever first lady. But how will she play out as a presidential candidate, where challenges lurk every day, from Iraq to Obama to, even, the occasional rude question about Monica Lewinsky?
While she’s being greeted by enthusiastic crowds and praised for her friendliness, glimpses of political calculation surfaced this week after news that she’d met with and told a gay-rights group she opposed the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” rule — but neglected to publicize the news.
“You’ll have to ask my campaign,” was all she would say when asked twice Monday in Iowa why she didn’t make the meeting public.
Still, “the fact that she’s so well exposed now is good for her. It gives her more of a chance to become familiar to people on her own terms,” said Mr. Steinhorn, the American University political scientist.
“Like her or not, we’ll become more familiar with this person and the long time frame of the campaign will ultimately benefit her.”
“In the end, how Hillary does will depend on how we feel about gender and sexism,” added Ms. Ossoff. “Everyone thinks we’ve gotten past it, but there’s still a lack of comfort that we as a culture have with women in power, and that will be reflected in both the way stories are framed about her, and, ultimately, what people decide to do in the voting booth.”
***End of article***
Personally, out of the 3 main Democratic candidates (Clinton, Obama, Edwards), I’d choose Edwards.
0
0
-
168
FrigidSymphony
in March 18th, 2007 @ 15:37Well, one fourth of america is retarded. What do you expect? And don’t judge HC by republican’s reactions…
0
0
-
169
Purple Panda
in March 18th, 2007 @ 18:14168 – I have no idea whether you were talking about me, but I think Hillary Clinton would make a fabulous president. Just at this point, I would prefer Edwards.
0
0
-
170
Elizabeth
in March 19th, 2007 @ 18:48I think they would all be decent presidents, but lookig at the Republican side, they’re all disgusting.
169- holy crap, that’s long, I’m afraid I don’t have time to read it now… Hillary’s cool!
0
0
-
171
InsanelyConfused
in March 19th, 2007 @ 19:28If you think about it, our past 20, almost 24, years as a country will have been spent with either a bush or a clinton as president if hillary is elected. Not a reason to not vote for her, but there.
0
0
-
172
Musketeer Number 5
in March 19th, 2007 @ 19:48I think the democrats need someone like Obama: different, smart but not stand-offish, some who swing voters will like over and liberal republican or a republican looking for values voters. I don’t think HC, Edwards, or Gore (if he decides to run) can do this as effectively.
0
0
-
173
Purple Panda
in March 20th, 2007 @ 18:06Does anyone want to discuss all the anti-war protests going on because we’re entering the 5th year of the Iraq war? (This is the longest war in United States history)
Or the Federal Prosecuters scandal?
0
0
-
174
Cat's Meow
in March 20th, 2007 @ 18:15171-That is an interesting to think about. I’m not old enough to vote, though. xD
173-Really? I didn’t know that…sure, I’m okay with discussing this.
0
0
-
175
nerdz__r00l
in March 20th, 2007 @ 19:38I don’t like hillary that much. In this country, if she could be a dictator, she would want to be one. Not good in these times of turmoil.
0
0
-
176
Musketeer Number 5
in March 20th, 2007 @ 20:06173. sure, I support them, but it’s a little late to be protesting…
do you know how many people are turning out for the protests? there was one in my little(ish) republican(ish) town and about 100 people showed up…
0
0
-
177
Purple Panda
in March 20th, 2007 @ 20:20There have been gigantic, I mean, enormous protests all around the world, with millions of people protesting against the war. I live in a pretty big city, and I’m going to a protest on Saturday which is expected to have several thousand people showing up.
I don’t think it’s ever too late to be protesting. I wasn’t alive then, but my Civics teacher said that the protesting against Vietnam really made a difference.
0
0
-
178
grnqween2011
in March 21st, 2007 @ 14:10what about the bong hits 4 jesus case?
0
0
-
179
Musketeer Number 5
in March 21st, 2007 @ 16:29Bush’s aids got subpoenas! Bush’s aid’s got subpoenas!
Hah… bush is suck a b****rd, trying to keep his aid’s from getting subpoenas!177. That’s great! and I see your point that it’s good to protest… I just wish these huge numbers of people had of “seen the light” before they voted for Bush…
0
0
-
180
Shadowkat
in March 25th, 2007 @ 11:44RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT!!!!!!!!!
(Assuming Kokopelli doesn’t run…)
0
0
-
181
Shadowkat
in March 25th, 2007 @ 14:57Global Warming Supporters:
My dad just showed a video for me and my grandparents, and it showed the truth behind “global warming”. I’ll make a deal with you guys…I’ll watch An Inconvenient Truth if you guys watch The Global Warming Swindle, ok? You can find it on Google videos.
0
0
-
182
Robert Coontz (Administrator)
in March 25th, 2007 @ 16:39I don’t understand why MBers seem to assume that “the truth” about global warming is (1) simple and (2) known. It’s a complicated problem, and scientists are working on it. The magazine for which I work (Science) publishes new scientific papers about past and future climate change every month. I don’t think a made-for-TV exposé will settle the questions.
0
0
-
183
emmatheduck
in March 25th, 2007 @ 17:57182-waitwaitwaitwaitwait!!!!! the magazine you work for is SCIENCE? *gasp* What are you doing here then? fickle! this is for Musers! you aren’t allowed to work for other magazines!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
EEEEEEEEEEEEEEVVVVVVVVVVVVVVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIILLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
0
0
-
184
Shadowkat
in March 25th, 2007 @ 18:20182-Well, it kind of explains how data has been twisted, and shows how the sun has been affecting the temperature of the globe more than carbon dioxide. Also, keep in mind that when I say “global warming”, I don’t necessarily mean human-created global warming…I might just mean an increase of the earth’s temperature in general, for no specific reason.
0
0
-
185
Cat's Meow
in March 25th, 2007 @ 18:30183-I think he works for both…*watches thread get stretched because of !s*
0
0
-
186
FrigidSymphony
in March 26th, 2007 @ 12:52Umm.. the oil companies have been doing their best to block research into global warming. The sad truth is that GW is an active and urgent happening.
0
0
-
187
Julieb
in March 26th, 2007 @ 14:59Shadowkat, I have a question for you:
Even if you do not believe global warming is real, which I personally do, don’t you think we should be doing our best to clean up the environment anyway?
0
0
-
188
Shadowkat
in March 27th, 2007 @ 13:41187-Sure…people are being stupid, always contaminating the environment, and we should keep our planet nice, and clean it up as best we can. And I never said Global Warming was non-existent…I simply said that it’s not caused by too much carbon dioxide…in fact, according to The Global Warming Swindle, the rise in carbon dioxide levels in the air followed the rise in Earth’s temperature (Granted, the graphs could’ve been skewed, but I personally think Al Gore is more likely to skew a graph than BBC.)…not the other way around. Global Warming is simply part of a giant cycle…you guys should probably research the subject using something other than An Inconvenient Truth, so as to hear both sides of the argument…I have.
0
0
-
189
Julieb
in March 27th, 2007 @ 14:28188- Even if global warming is not happening, the science behind it is real. Yes, the earth goes through cycles. But what happened to humans last time this happened? Most died out. So did hundreds of other species. If there is even the possibility that this is caused by us, shouldn’t we be trying to stop it? And why is the BBC suddenly more reliable than anyone else? The fact that every station is completely controlled by the government doesn’t really support your argument. Why would Gore want to skew graphs? Why would anybody want to convince the world something so horrible is happening if it wasn’t?
0
0
-
190
Robert Coontz (Administrator)
in March 27th, 2007 @ 14:31Factual correction: “The Great Global-Warming Swindle” was not produced or broadcast by the BBC. It was made by a private TV production company and broadcast on an independent British TV channel, Channel 4.
0
0
-
191
Musketeer Number 5
in March 28th, 2007 @ 20:17Who cares if Global Warming is real or not, it’s a reason to get funding to clean up the environment that even the US might have to consent to! I say push it as hard as you can wether or not you personally believe just so the gov. funds environmental clean up…
A whole bunch of illegal immigrants were rounded up where I live. Some of my friends’ parents were taken. I really dont know what to think. The people knew the risks when they came, but still…
0
0
-
192
Cat's Meow
in March 28th, 2007 @ 20:36188-Really? I heard that from some kid at school, but he really didn’t have enough evidence to back anything up, so we dismissed the idea.
0
0
-
193
FrigidSymphony
in March 29th, 2007 @ 14:49GLOBAL WARMING IS HAPPENING!! Why is this so hard to get through your stubborn heads? Do you fear leaving your zone of comfort?? Not only is it happening, but it’s happening fast, and will have dire consequences IN OUR LIFETIME.
0
0
-
194
nerdz__r00l
in March 29th, 2007 @ 18:17The global warming question is already over…Even the united nations says there’s a90% chance that global warming is caused by us. The question now is what we are going to do about it.
0
0
-
195
Shadowkat
in March 29th, 2007 @ 21:05189-In answer to the question related to Gore skewing graphs: funds…if he can get more money by getting more people to give to certain causes, why wouldn’t he? Also, he has some seriously green views…getting people behind them would only advance his position. What these “global warming” people are doing is stopping progress…let’s all just go back to horse-and-buggy, eh? If that’s what you guys want to do, have at it, but don’t impose it on me and mine (unless they want it, that is).
190-My bad…I just saw it on YouTube…thanks.
191-And just where exactly do those wonderful gov’t funds come from, do you suppose? US!!! As taxpayers, we’re the ones providing the money in those funds.
192-Have you seen the video I’m talking about?
193-Oh, hush…if you’re not going to back up your arguments with ideas and facts, then don’t post them, please.
194-Who cares what the U.N. says? They’re so corrupt, almost nothing they say or do is reliable.
I’m am this close to taking a break from this thread for a week voluntarily…:mad:
0
0
-
196
Robert Coontz (Administrator)
in March 29th, 2007 @ 23:10This discussion raises some interesting questions. You have two documentaries, citing different interpretations of different data and showing two different graphs. Do you:
(1) Believe the one that tells you what you want to hear?
(2) Believe the one that tells you what you don’t want to hear, just to be on the safe side?
(3) Split the difference?
(4) Believe nobody?
(5) Something else?
0
0
-
197
Evie
in March 29th, 2007 @ 23:24I don’t know what we’re talking about but I like Robert’s questions.
I think that 5 is a good addition because otherwise I’d feel the need to whine that there wasn’t an option for Believing Everybody. (It’s not a good idea, but it’s better than believing someone over another or my own demented and ill-informed opinions…)
0
0
-
198
Evie
in March 29th, 2007 @ 23:27Okay just looked at it more closely and feel the need to say my, as I’ve said, ill-informed and probably skewed and off opinion…
Sex is not supposed to be for pleasure. We were given the ability to enjoy it, but it is a form of reproduction. It is to create joy in other ways- a smiling little girl or tumbling little boy (or vice-versa). Even if it doesn’t always work out to be joyful this way, it’s what we’re supposed to aim for…
Okay that sounded stupid even to me. Gomennasai…
Anyways it’s not right to mistreat or disrespect sex. And if you love someone enough, the way you should, to have sex, why shouldn’t you love them enough to be married at this point? (seriously asking)
0
0
-
199
Evie
in March 29th, 2007 @ 23:29Darnit- if whoever looks over my last comment wants to they can delete it because I only read the beginning discussion before wanting to jump in with my say and obviously now I can see everyone’s moved on. I’ll stop trying to participate here. Sorry.
0
0
-
200
Shadowkat
in March 30th, 2007 @ 17:27196-Well, it wasn’t completely different information…but your point remains. It’s not really whether or not it’s what I want to hear, but, judging by what I’ve learned in the past, in regular school subjects, such as science, gov’t, and just general life, what the makers of The Great Global-Warming Swindle say makes more sense to me…I don’t really care one way or another…I know that sounds mean, but it’s not…I just have other things on my mind, such as the fact that, any day now, gov’t agents could come and storm my house, take my parents into custody (and them never be heard of again), ship my brother and I off to some gov’t brainwashing school, etc., because my dad actually read through the whole Internal Revenue Code (all 5 million pages, or whatever it is…it took him two years), and found out the truth, exposing the lie that everyone’s been led to believe all these years, and the gov’t doesn’t like that, because they’re losing money for it, because my dad’s right, and they’re trying to stop him from telling people the truth by any means possible…maybe now you understand why I have so much against the gov’t…they lie…it’s what they do…and I detest them.
0
0
-
201
nerdz__r00l
in March 30th, 2007 @ 20:14195-being they so corrupt, even they say that global warming is 90% our fault.
0
0
-
202
Julieb
in March 30th, 2007 @ 20:33Shadowkat- Has your dad read the Constitution? Because I’m pretty sure that it would override whatever the government could put in the Internal Revenue Code. I’m sorry, but you sound like a conspiracy theorist.
And a few more things:
The money doesn’t go to Gore.
“Seriously green views?”
Haven’t you ever heard of biodiesal?
And since when is the UN corrupt?
0
0
-
203
Shadowkat
in March 31st, 2007 @ 22:28201-What? I’m sorry, maybe some of your post got cut off, but that didn’t really make sense (not meant offensively).
202-Excuse me?! *Is extremely insulted!* He can recite the Constitution by heart!!! Of course he’s read it! Did no part of that sink in?! The Constitution can override the IRC, but the Code’s been so misrepresented for so long, that not many people even know what it means anymore…Congress, when they wrote it, gave certain words a special meaning, and those meanings were made only applicable in the Code itself. The common word “income”, which usually meant any money coming in to a given household or business, became all money earned by a given party performing a service to/for the gov’t. Unfortunately, these special meanings were not often revealed to the public, and so many people misunderstood the whole concept. Over time, the idea of giving the gov’t a part of your earnings became commonplace, and everybody did it. Before anyone knew it, no one knew the difference between income, and “income”, and everyone turned in their tax forms in April, because “that was the law”…it really all started as a BIG misunderstanding…sad, isn’t it?
In response to “a few more things”:
1. No, not the money for research, and what not, but you can bet he gets some of it…no one does something for nothing.
2. Just the fact that they think people are monsters who don’t deserve to walk the earth (deliberate exaggeration).
3. Yes, I have, but, in truth, I don’t know much about it…what does it do (in terms of protecting the environment…in which case, “what doesn’t it do” may be the better question)?
4. On a scale of 1-10, 10 being most, how well-informed of world events do you think you are?What’s the matter, is all this going to shatter the mirror of a perfect world you’ve been staring into all your life? Afraid of waking up to see the truth staring you in the face? That’s really too bad…because the mirror is cracked, and the sun’s shining through.
0
0
-
204
Julieb
in April 2nd, 2007 @ 11:20203- You’re denying global warming and your calling me uninformed?!
Ok, here’s my retort.
Taxes have nothing to do with the government being able to (direct quote) “storm my house, take my parents into custody (and them never be heard of again), ship my brother and I off to some gov’t brainwashing school…†We who have the “privilege” of living in the United states have rights, including rights that prevent the government from storming your house without a warrant, which can only be obtained should an unbiased judge feel there is reason to believe it is necessary and that a criminal act has been committed. Should someone who is arrested feel that they have not committed any crime, they always have the writ of habeas corpus. However, I acknowledge that these rights can be compromised by the government, though the only way we can stop this is by voting or protesting, other rights we share. I would also like to know where these government brainwashing schools exist.
1- He’s ridiculously rich already. And intelligent, having graduated from Harvard. He was nominated for a Nobel Prize. What do you have against him?
2- There is no way I can even comment on that.
3- Biodiesel is fuel made out of plants, usually vegetable oils. It works in most diesel engines with no conversion whatsoever, and is relatively cheap to produce. Cars run on biodiesel produce at least 60% less carbon dioxide and 50% carbon monoxide in their emissions than those run on gasoline. Because biodiesal can be made from such things as used cooking oil and other byproducts, it is also readily available. This means, should everyone switch to biodiesel fuel, the worlds emissions would be reduced drastically without anyone having to walk. It is also nontoxic and hard to ignite. An environmentally friendly renewable energy source that only the petroleum companies deny the efficiency of. What doesn’t it do indeed.
4- I read the news from several different and relatively unbiased sources every day. I’d say I was more informed on a lot of topics than you. You still have not divulged your reasons for believing the United Nations is corrupt and not just useless. I didn’t want this to turn into a flame war, but I’m straining to remain civil.
0
0
-
205
Shadowkat
in April 2nd, 2007 @ 12:58Julie, I’m trying to remain civil as well, but I find it hard to do so when you won’t even look at any evidence other than that which you’re given. For the past couple days, I’ve been finding and reading a multitude of articles on Global Warming, just because I want to be well-informed on the subject. Considering I don’t know how much research you do, it’s not my place to insult you on that subject, so, I’m sorry…it was 11:00 at night, I was sick, had just gotten a 2 at State S&E, had played in a strenuous soccer game, and was just in a bad mood in general. I know I sound like I’m just making a bunch of excuses (I guess I am), but I really mean it. When I read back through my post, I realized that it was a bit of a slap in the face. I truly am sorry. Please accept my apology. I would like to make amends, somehow, but I’m not sure how to go about it. I’m sorry the subject of taxes even came into this, but it was somewhat necessary to bring it into the discussion in order to make my point. (I don’t trust the gov’t, because they’ve never given me a reason to do so, and plenty of reasons to not do so.) But, nonetheless, I must respond:
I’m not denying global warming, not at all. All I’m saying is that it’s a part of a giant cycle. I just recently read in an article (Solar and Celestial Causes of Global Warming, by Donald W. Miller, Jr., MD) that, in Gore’s “documentary”, he left out a major portion of a graph, so that it would match his theory…I’m not sure if this is true, as, these days, one must take everything with a grain of salt, but the same article stated that Gore “profits handsomely from his climate crisis activities”. He reportedly got $250, 000 for giving a speech in Saudi Arabia recently. As I said before, “No one does something for nothing.” This article, and many other bits of information that I’ve picked up over the past 2 weeks, or so, give another explanation for global warming: solar cycles. According to records of solar activity and global temperature taken over the past 400 years, there’s strong evidence for this theory considering how closely matching the two graphs of these records are. If you either read the above-mentioned article, or watch The Great Global-Warming Swindle, you’ll see what I’m talking about. And I’m going to see what you’re talking about tonight, because I’m renting An Inconvenient Truth, ok?
Taxes do have something to do with that when you’re me…you call me a “conspiracy theorist”. In other words, I’m a crazy anti-gov’t nutcase? If that’s what you’re saying, please expand on your theory. I’m not crazy, just extremely involved in the political scene, and, at the beginning, it wasn’t my choice to be so. I hated it, but when I realized how important it was to the future of life as we know it, I decided I would live with it, and even help a bit. Please read the article (an essay written by my dad) posted below…it might clear a few things up.
1-So? Who doesn’t want more money? And you can have as much knowledge as you choose to acquire, but it’s what you do with that knowledge that decides who you are.
2-I didn’t expect you to…honestly, I was mad, and couldn’t think of anything else to say…sorry.
3-Thank you for telling me…I didn’t know that.
4-That’s because I honestly don’t know much about the U.N., and I’m going on what I’ve heard. But, I do know more about certain subjects than you do, just as you’re more informed on others than me. And I don’t want this to become a flame war, either.Here’s the article I was talking about (sorry if it doesn’t quite come out right):
Getting Free Of The “Income” Tax Scheme Is As Easy As Falling Off A Bicycle(An Instructive Little Mental Exercise)
To get an idea of how today’s “income” tax scheme works, try this little exercise. Keeping in mind the Constitutional limitations on the federal taxing power (briefly summarized here, or more comprehensively, here), think of the federal government like a guy named Bob, who lives down the street from you in a town that is really big on bicycles. Bikes get used for commuting, deliveries, shopping, etc.. In fact, other than walking, bicycles are the exclusive form of transportation in your town.
Your neighbor Bob has a by-the-mile bicycle-renting business– “Bob’s Bicycles”. Bob’s Bicycles is far and away the biggest business in town. Part of this is because Bob does a lot of contract business. However, Bob doesn’t just get paid by riders who have signed an agreement with him, or even just those using Bob’s bikes. Bob gets something every time anybody in town does any riding at all, through an odd combination of circumstances that took many years to come together.
Here’s how it happened…
Bob’s Bicycles was launched long ago by the great grandfather of the present Bob (Bob IV). Great Grandpa Bob started out not only with a main location for his contract business– he also had the bright idea of setting up spots around town where he parked some of his bikes for use by the more occasional rider, on an “honor system”. Anyone could take and use one of these bikes, but they were expected to keep track of their mileage, and send Bob a “1040 Mileage Ridden/Rent Due Form” (and the appropriate rent), periodically. The initial design of the form was like this:
I, ___________, rode a Bob’s Bicycle a total of _____ miles this year.
At Bob’s rental rate of $.15 per mile, I owe Bob $_____
I said that Great Grandpa Bob planned to deal with these occasional riders on the “honor system”, and that’s true. But he liked his money, too, and didn’t want to miss anything that was due him. So, after setting up the “self-serve” locations, Great Grandpa Bob went around handing out “W-2, 1099 or K-1 Rider Reporting Forms” to every other business in town. The forms– accompanied by notices that if Bob didn’t get his rent from someone riding a bicycle in connection with any business, he would sue the company involved– said:
I, _______ , saw _______ riding a bicycle from _______ to _______ on __/__/__
I swear this to be true to the best of my knowledge and belief under penalties of perjury,
_________________ __/__/__
***
To begin with, everybody understood that where it says “bicycle” on one of Bob’s “W-2, 1099 or K-1 Rider Reporting Forms” or notices, it means “one of Bob’s bicycles”. For one thing, this was obvious. After all, what legitimate interest would Bob have in getting a report about someone riding a bike that wasn’t his? Indeed, what business would Bob have even asking for a report about someone riding a non-Bob’s Bicycle? Everyone understood, and besides, on the back of the form, anyone who looked would find, “When used on one of Bob’s forms or notices, “bicycle” means “one of Bob’s bicycles””. So, these forms worked well enough, to begin with. Everyone understood what they were for, and Bob’s “honor system” bicycles were all painted bright red, so mistakes were few.
Some mistakes DID happen though. So, Great Grandpa Bob provided that the same reporting paperwork used to admit riding a “Bob’s Bicycle” on the honor system– which could be conveniently found at the “Bob’s Bicycles” locations all over town– would serve to correct any errors. All that a victim of an erroneous “W-2, 1099 or K-1 Rider Reporting Form” needed to do was fill out one of the “1040 Mileage Ridden/Rent Due” forms declaring the truth of the matter. This might mean reporting that they had ridden ‘0’ miles on one of Bob’s bikes that year. Or it might mean acknowledging miles that they DID ride one of Bob’s bikes, but with the reported total mileage not including the information from the erroneous “W-2, 1099 or K-1 Rider Reporting Form”. This particular use of the “1040 Mileage Ridden/Rent Due” form led to a little change in its design. Now it looked like this:
I, ___________, rode a Bob’s Bicycle a total of _____ miles this year.
Since Bob’s rental rate is $.15 per mile, I owe Bob $_____
Under penalties of perjury, I declare the foregoing to be true, complete and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief,
___________ __/__/__
(Great Grandpa Bob was a nice guy, and he was comfortable with his “honor system”. But Great Grandpa Bob wasn’t born yesterday.)
***
Over the years, things got a bit more complicated, just by an unfortunate coincidence of a bunch of misunderstandings. For one thing, Bob Jr. stopped personally distributing the “W-2, 1099 or K-1 Rider Reporting Forms”, and hired a company to take care of this for him. Now, folks who had never even met Bob, and didn’t know anything about him or his business, started getting “W-2, 1099 or K-1 Rider Reporting Forms” in the mail.
Along with the forms came prominent instructions advising the recipient to, “Use this form to report the use of a bicycle by any person”. The note that, “When used on one of Bob’s forms or notices, “bicycle” means “one of Bob’s bicycles””, got reworded into more complex ‘legalese’, and buried in a whole lot of new fine print on the back of the form.
Later, that clarifying note moved off the form entirely– first being replaced by a cryptic reference to where the definition might be found in the “Bicycle Forms, Publications and Policies Guide” (conveniently available at each “Bob’s” location around town), and then ultimately being dropped altogether under the principle that knowing what the forms are for is the responsibility of the person filling one out. Unsurprisingly, a lot of folks misunderstood, and began filling out and sending these reports to the address provided every time they saw anyone riding ANY bicycle.
Another thing contributing to complications with Great Grandpa Bob’s program was Bob Jr’s decision to stop painting his “honor system” bikes bright red. Pretty soon, even folks who remembered that “W-2, 1099 or K-1 Rider Reporting Forms” only related to Bob’s bicycles were filling them out anytime they saw anyone riding a bike. This was only partly out of confusion. “Bob’s” had become a very successful business over the years, and was an important customer to every other company in town. People were eager to please Bob, and keep in his good graces; furthermore, although the fine print on the “W-2, 1099 or K-1 Rider Reporting Forms” had changed, those notices about Bob suing for his money hadn’t. Bob maintained a really active PR department, and was well thought-of in the community in general, but he also had the most aggressive collections and legal operations in town. What with the subject of a report having a simple means of correcting any errors, and in light of these other considerations, the simplest and safest course was just to fill out a report whenever anyone was seen on any bike.
***
It wasn’t long before the town’s kids were growing up with the impression that Bob had some kind of legal interest in bicycle usage in general. After all, once they got jobs, the company they worked for would automatically fill out a “W-2, 1099 or K-1 Rider Reporting Form” and send it to Bob, even when they rode their own bike. If the rider didn’t then send in the rent, Bob’s collection agency would be all over them like ugly on an ape, with no questions asked.
By the time the grandkids of the first “Bob’s Bicycles” customers were coming up, everyone had heard stories about riders who, having not paid Bob, were hauled into court and accused of “bicycle rent evasion”. All that ever was alleged in these cases was that the accused rode a bicycle, and hadn’t paid Bob. It appeared that if just these things alone were proven, dire consequences followed.
Bob, it seemed, could charge you rent for using your own stuff, and the legal system would back him up! By then it didn’t occur to anyone– including the defendants in these affairs– that when used in a Bob’s-bicycles-related legal action “bicycle” doesn’t mean “any bicycle”, but only means “one of Bob’s bicycles”, just as it does on a “W-2, 1099 or K-1 Rider Reporting Form”. After all, by then almost no one alive could remember back to the beginning. By then, almost no one alive had ever read through Bob’s “Bicycle Forms, Publications and Policies Guide”, which had grown over the years to thousands and thousands of pages in length.
Further, by then Bob’s Bicycles was so big, and so rich, and so diversified, that Bob III had a hand in everything that went on in town, and knew just how to spread all that rent money around. He had no trouble securing the support of the town fathers and other important and influential folks, and those movers and shakers– just as ignorant of the truth as anyone else– were happy to help Bob’s PR department encourage everyone to just “pay their rent” without question. Paying rent to Bob became something to be done not only unselfishly, but with pride. Paying rent to Bob was good for the community!
***
Over the years, every “Bob” has carefully kept the overall rent-burden tolerable. The nominal rates have often been high, but a big list of discounts and credits has grown in pace with the misunderstanding about who really owes rent to Bob. When everyone understood, and all the business done with Bob was knowingly voluntary, one simple rental rate was enough, and no elaborate discounting was needed. But as more and more people found themselves seemingly beholden to Bob, he realized that if he tried to take the same rate from the less-well-off that he could get away with from the well-to-do, somebody– faced with a bill they couldn’t handle– might just start actually reading his “Bicycle Forms, Publications and Policies Guide”, however difficult that had been made. Then the good thing Bob has grown accustomed to might fall apart. So, Bob’s rental rates have grown increasingly “progressive”. Bob, no dummy, is content to sacrifice on margin and make it up in volume.
In his best move ever, Bob instituted a “payroll deduction” program, under which the townsfolk are encouraged to anticipate how much riding they’re going to do over the year, and then have part of their pay sent to Bob each week against the annual rent bill they figure will result. By virtue of this program, most folks never even really notice how much they’re sending to Bob! (Bob is still chortling over this one, decades after thinking it up…)
Needless to say, Bob’s “1040 Mileage Ridden/Rent Due” forms have gotten rather complicated. But whole industries have sprung up in town just to help people fill them out (for a fee, of course). The average person doesn’t directly deal with paying Bob at all, anymore– in fact, most get a “refund” from Bob each year, of what had been “over-deducted” under the “payroll deduction” program, and view it like a birthday present. All-in-all, Bob has succeeded in creating the “perfect storm” of misunderstanding.
***
Well, that’s the story of Bob’s Bicycles. Today, everyone in town plans all their affairs with Bob’s piece-of-the-action factored in. Indeed, big chunks of the population do nothing but handle Bob’s Bicycle-related activities. Most of the rest can’t imagine a time without the business Bob does with their own businesses, or the charitable “giving-back-to-the-community” grants Bob makes out of the rent money he collects.
Great Grandpa Bob rests; probably with a smile on his face, ’cause the kids are doing all right. And deep within Bob’s “Bicycle Forms, Publications and Policies Guide”, the long-forgotten truth rests, too– waiting for anyone willing to go to the trouble to take it out for a spin.
Sorry, GAPA’s…heh, heh…how you enjoyed it!
0
0
-
206
FrigidSymphony
in April 2nd, 2007 @ 14:10I am shocked that there is actually a discussion about global warming. It’s staring you all in the goddamm face!! Our glaciers in Switzerland are 70% smaller than they were 80 years ago!!! It’s the american lifestyle that has seemingly endless space to use and abuse that gives the american people the ability to not see the obvious. In Central Park on New Year’s Eve it was 20 degrees celsisus! What is wrong??? Global warming is happening and you’re wasting time finding moral excuses to ignore it! Why don’t you start walking around more, visit some places… And learn???
0
0
-
207
Shadowkat
in April 2nd, 2007 @ 17:08206-Thank you for supporting your opinion with facts. But in the year 900, Greenland was actually green, and then in 1780, New York harbor froze. Now we’re warming up again, and it’s just part of the cycle.
0
0
-
208
Shadowkat
in April 2nd, 2007 @ 17:11Julieb-There’s something I forgot to address: habeas corpus no longer applies. Mr. Bush signed that away in his Military Commissions Act last October.
0
0
-
209
Shadowkat
in April 2nd, 2007 @ 20:08Sorry for the triple post, but, guys, we’ve entirely forgotten about the entire thread (which is only half used up, but unfortunately closed to posting at the moment *hem*) devoted to global warming…we could, conceivably, continue our discussion there, and let the other HT-lovers have their thread back.
0
0
-
210
Julieb
in April 2nd, 2007 @ 22:17I don’t think there are any other H-T lovers on this thread, besides FridgidSyphony. And your right about the Military Commissions Act, however I assumed that you lived in the United States and were therefore a citizen. The act only denies Habeas Corpus to aliens determined to be “unlawful enemy combatants”. Not that I condone this in anyway. Everything this administration has passed limiting the rights of anyone, regardless of citizenship status, is detestable.
I’m assuming your story was a parallel to taxation? I would just like to point out that taxes have been a part of this country since it was founded, and the government really has no other source of income with which to fund anything, whether it be war or community programs. I believe the moral of the story was that the government was taxing people on things that were not meant to be taxed, though you really didn’t specify what these things were. Care to elaborate?
0
0
-
211
Julieb
in April 2nd, 2007 @ 22:22Oh, and I didn’t call you a conspiracy theorist as such, I just felt that way you were espousing some of your ideas came off with the tone of a conspiracy theorist.
0
0
-
212
Shadowkat
in April 3rd, 2007 @ 08:20True…I guess we’ll just stay here, then. Perhaps I misunderstood, but I think that Bush could probably say that anyone was and “unlawful enemy combatant”…I don’t know…again, I haven’t researched this subject. I should, though, really.
Yes, but only taxation on income. “Income”, as defined in the IRC, is only money earned by doing a service for the gov’t, investing in gov’t corporations, or collecting welfare or soical security, but almost no one knows the difference anymore. Just ask me questions, if you have any more, please…it’s easier for me to answer questions than to just explain everything about a certain subject.
Alright, well, I didn’t mean to sound like that. And I’m not…nor am I paranoid…I’m just not naive.
0
0
-
213
Robert Coontz (Administrator)
in April 3rd, 2007 @ 08:50I’m sure tax lawyers are extremely well versed in the history of taxation in this country. As I understand it, in the early days of the United States, the government didn’t need to tax people very much, because it had another way of making money: real estate. When the settlers moved west, that’s who sold them the land for their ranches, farms, homesteads, and towns. Later in the 19th Century, though, the land ran out, but there were still wars to be fought and bills to be paid. The solution: income tax. I’ll have to check that story with Larry Gonick. He knows more history than anybody.
0
0
-
214
davidude
in April 3rd, 2007 @ 11:22206 – Don’t blame it all on the Americans. Europeans share a big chunk of the blame.
A dude I know said, “Global warming is true, everybody!! The world has risen 4 degrees… in the pas 600 YEARS!!!” And then all of his friends started laughing cause they do stuff like that and I ran around like a maniac screaming, “Call the press! [name censored] admitted Global warming is true!!! Oh my gosh! The story of the century!” And then he said, “Waht are you talking about fool? It’s only risen 4 degrees..” “In the past 600 years. You admitted the globe is warming. Don’t deny it.” And on and on and on. Dang, it was hard to get the last laugh in that argument.
0
0
-
215
FrigidSymphony
in April 3rd, 2007 @ 12:51214: We may share a part of the blame, but we’ve been doing so much more to fight it. Europe is extremely environmentally aware.
Look, I refuse to forward arguments for global Warming because there should not be a discussion at all. This is moronic, and it shows me the level of idiocy on certain topics in the states.
0
0
-
216
Shadowkat
in April 3rd, 2007 @ 13:50215-So you’ve decided to generalize based on what I’m saying? Because I am the only one who’s saying that “global warming” isn’t man-made…and that’s all I’m saying. It’s not caused by CO2…it’s caused by sunspots. The amount of CO2 in the air actually follows the global temperature in increasing. When the globe heats up, more icebergs melt, and oceans evaporate, etc., releasing CO2 into the atmosphere.
0
0
-
217
Julieb
in April 3rd, 2007 @ 17:47216- I’ve started to watch your muched-praised video, The Great Global Warming Swindle. I have a few problems with it, and I’m nowhere near close to finishing it, but I have found one major flaw. The people on the video claim that CO2 is not responsible for global warming, rather, that water vapor is the main greenhouse gas in our atmosphere. Water vapor is in our atmosphere because of condensation nuclei, today created by factories and planes. So, would it not stand to reason that pollution is still the main cause of excessive amounts of water in the air, and therefore global warming? There are other problems, such as claiming that the polar bear is not at risk as it’s habitat is melting, which we know to be false simply by watching species either join the endangered species list or go extinct altogether because of their habitats being decimated. Look how many species died out during the last period of great climate change, the ice age of the pleistocene epoch.
0
0
-
218
Julieb
in April 3rd, 2007 @ 19:33Oh, and how do oceans evaporating release CO2?
0
0
-
219
Shadowkat
in April 3rd, 2007 @ 20:25217-Thank you.
But it’s also in the air because of normal evaporation.
True, and it’s sad, but it happened, and there’s not much we can do about it…on the other hand, they survived before, so I’m sure they will again…ok, I’m not sure, but, well…eh.218-There’s condensed CO2 in the oceans (known as dissolved CO2), and when the water evaporates, that dissolved CO2 is released.
0
0
-
220
Julieb
in April 3rd, 2007 @ 22:16What I meant was that larger amounts of condensation nuclei mean that more water is able to stay in the air.
0
0
-
221
Robert Coontz (Administrator)
in April 3rd, 2007 @ 22:24Condensation nuclei might also take water out of the air in the form of precipitation. And if they caused more clouds to form, then they might cool Earth’s surface and decrease evaporation — and cool the air, lowering its capacity to retain moisture. The feedback loops must be very complicated, but I’m sure that the atmospheric scientists who make the supercomputer models have thought a lot about what goes where.
0
0
-
222
Purple Panda
in April 4th, 2007 @ 05:15I think global warming is a topic that is so hard to discuss, because there are so many different theories and ideas about what to do about it, or whether it exists. We’re talking about it in my Civics class, and it’s really interesting to have a discussion and see what everyone else thinks about it.
We also watched Inconvenient Truth, and (this is just my theory) I think Gore is going to run for president. I think he’s doing all of this stuff..making movies, etc. in preparation for announcing that he’ll run. What does everbody else think?
0
0
-
223
Shadowkat
in April 4th, 2007 @ 11:52221-That’s true. Also, part of the Cosmic Rays/Sunspots Theory is that, when there’s more solar activity, the sun’s magnetic field spreads out to cover the planets more, deflecting cosmic rays (from neighboring stars) away from the earth’s atmosphere. When there are more rays hitting the earth, more muons (heavy electrons) get caught in the atmosphere. These muons form low-level (below 800 ft.) clouds, covering the earth, and thereby cooling it. When these rays are prevented from hitting the earth, less clouds are formed, letting more heat into the atmosphere, and causing “global warming”. Sorry, that was a little unorganized, but I think it made a fair bit of sense…
222-Yes, it is difficult, but, right now (in school), I’m guessing you’re only seeing one side of the argument…am I right, or are they showing you guys all the theories?
And about Gore running for president: it’s perfectly possible…would you vote for him?
0
0
-
224
Julieb
in April 4th, 2007 @ 11:55Your probably right, Robert. Problem is, I hate meteorology and climate science. Bores me to death, and the fact that they seem to be guessing half the time makes it ridiculously imprecise. Sorry, I know that science progresses through people guessing and taking chances and meteorologists work very hard but I don’t care. It makes it extremely difficult for me to actually know what I’m talking about. My understanding was that water droplets form around condensation nuclei, therefore the more there was the less there is to attach to other droplets and cause precipitation. I could be totally wrong here. Or is it that water vapor is always in the air, and condensation nuclei just provide a place for it to gather and form a droplet? I have a feeling the second explanation is closer to the truth.
0
0
-
225
FrigidSymphony
in April 4th, 2007 @ 13:15216: Your opinion, or something similar, happens to be shared by many other people, in the US.
0
0
-
226
Shadowkat
in April 4th, 2007 @ 20:15225-Well, it doesn’t seem like it…maybe it’s just the people I know…hm…oh, well. But I’m pretty sure the majority of the U.S. population disagrees with me…after all, An Inconvenient Truth‘s pretty much required viewing in most schools here, as far as I can tell.
0
0
-
227
FrigidSymphony
in April 5th, 2007 @ 03:24226: That just shows it. If Al Gore’s movie made such an impact, then you people had no idea before. To me the movie was nothing new.
0
0
-
228
I-Man
in April 5th, 2007 @ 09:15PHEWWW!!! WOW.
0
0
-
229
I-Man
in April 5th, 2007 @ 09:18Anyone here like “Avatar: The Last Airbender?” Anyone who does should know that Katara is probably going to fall in love with Aang or Zuko. But I stumbled across an idea a while ago: what about MOMO and Katara? I decided to test this at a website where you can calculate the probability of a relationship:
Aang and Katara: 0%
Zuko and Katara: I think 33%
Momo and Katara…?: 62%!!!!!!UNDERDOGS (or under-winged-lemurs) RULE!!!!!
0
0
-
230
FrigidSymphony
in April 5th, 2007 @ 10:46229: What the hell are you doing? Get out of the hot tpoics thread.
0
0
-
231
Julieb
in April 5th, 2007 @ 13:38I-Man, I’m guessing your new. Try visiting the Welcome, Newcomers! thread first. You might also want to note thread names. The monthly random thread, April Showers, is probably better suited for that kind of topic. The Hot Topics thread is for more serious discussion of current events.
0
0
-
232
Julieb
in April 5th, 2007 @ 16:33Shadowkat- I just found a great article on NewScientist.com about the information presented in The Great Global Warming Swindle Know that I’m not doing this to anger you, just to inform you.
Fake fights are not helping climate science
20 March 2007
Exclusive from New Scientist Print Edition. Subscribe and get 4 free issues.
Alan ThorpeFew areas of science have implications as momentous as those of climate change. Much is riding not only on ensuring that the science is as accurate as possible but also on getting the political and social response right. Given the high stakes, it is hardly surprising that scientists’ methods and conclusions are coming under considerable scrutiny. This is as it should be. After all, scepticism is fundamental to the scientific method.
Scepticism is one thing; cynicism and conspiracy-theorising are quite another. These are the hallmarks of a recent attempt to discredit the widely accepted theory that human-made carbon dioxide emissions are causing global warming. A loose affiliation of scientists and writers is pushing the alternative idea that fluctuations in solar activity provide a better explanation for the rise and fall in the temperature of Earth’s atmosphere over the past few centuries.
Their basic argument goes something like this. When the cosmic rays that constantly bombard Earth from outer space hit water vapour rising from the oceans, they cause clouds to form in the atmosphere which shield the planet from solar radiation and cause it to cool. The sun’s magnetic field dampens the effect of cosmic rays, so reducing cloud cover and causing Earth to heat up. Thus an active sun makes for a warmer planet – a correlation these scientists claim is borne out by the records.
Readers in the UK may have seen the most recent incarnation of this theory in the Channel 4 television programme The Great Global Warming Swindle, broadcast last week. The programme questioned not only the mainstream of global warming science but also the integrity of the researchers involved in it. As I am the head of the major funder of climate science in the UK, the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC), such accusations of bias, lying and prejudice were bound to catch my attention.
First, let’s deal with the main thesis: that the presence or absence of cosmic rays in Earth’s atmosphere is a better explanation for temperature variation than the concentration of CO2 and other gases. This is not a new assertion and it is patently wrong: there is no credible evidence that cosmic rays play a significant role. The climate system is complex and it is likely that many factors affect it, cosmic rays among them. But to claim they are a major influence is disingenuous. There is far greater evidence suggesting CO2 is the major cause of warming.
“To claim that cosmic rays are a major influence is disingenuousâ€Another claim made by the sceptics relates to the observation that in the long-term history of Earth’s climate, variations in atmospheric concentrations of CO2 have lagged behind variations in the temperature of the atmosphere. Therefore, they say, the theory that human-produced greenhouse gases are the cause of current warming must be wrong.
Not so. True, the historical rhythm of major ice ages and interglacial periods is set by Earth’s orbital variations, known as Milankovitch cycles, not by levels of greenhouse gases. However, these cycles in turn trigger feedback effects – such as increases or decreases in levels of CO2 in the atmosphere – which amplify the change in temperature.
There is no question that the more CO2 there is in the atmosphere, the warmer the planet becomes. It is not the only mechanism for warming, but it is a prominent one. We are adding CO2 and other greenhouse gases to the atmosphere in a way that has never happened before. The physics of how these gases cause warming by trapping the sun’s radiation within the lower atmosphere – the greenhouse effect – is well established and it is no surprise that temperatures have been rising over the past 40 years. What’s more, from the comprehensive models that climate scientists have built up, it is clear that only human-made greenhouse gases can explain this warming. Other factors, such as solar variations, have been found to be insignificant in comparison.
This debate is not just about science. Implicit in the sceptics’ message is the suggestion that scientists are lying about the role of CO2 in climate change. The impression given is that this is a conspiracy; that climate scientists are deliberately trying to mislead the public, either to affect policy because of their private political motivations or to be more successful in attracting research funding.
Again, this is not backed up by any evidence. In my experience the climate science community operates at the highest ethical level and sticks to the scientific evidence.
The problem with debating the science of something like climate change is that it is hard for the public to assess the arguments across the whole spectrum of scientific opinion. It is partly in recognition of this that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change periodically publishes its scientific assessments that draw together the full body of knowledge on the subject. That is not a political process. It is a scientific one. Let scepticism reign, but let’s not play games with the evidence.
0
0
-
233
Shadowkat
in April 5th, 2007 @ 18:09Ok, but if he’s funding the companies promoting the man-made global warming theory (as I understood him to be), why wouldn’t he debate the Solar/Cosmic Ray Theory? Also, if he’s right, why did the atmospheric level of CO2 follow the global temperature in increases? And why did increased solar activity lead it?
0
0
-
234
Julieb
in April 6th, 2007 @ 22:45Wouldn’t the people paying for it be the most likely to want it to not be true? Then they wouldn’t have to fund the research. It’s too late, I’m going to bed. I’ll try to respond to the rest tomorrow.
0
0
-
235
Shadowkat
in April 7th, 2007 @ 13:34That doesn’t make any sense…please rephrase it.
0
0
-
236
Julieb
in April 8th, 2007 @ 11:37Sorry, I’ve been really busy and still am. I’m just procratinating. I’ll try to rephrase it for you. The people paying for research would be just as happy not to pay for it, it’s costing them millions. These people obviously do tons of research before choosing to invest in something like that, millionares and/or CEO’s are not stupid people. I really do have to go now.
0
0
-
237
Shadowkat
in April 8th, 2007 @ 18:29Thanks. Yes, but what if they’re getting paid by someone else to help the GW theme along? The possibility exists.
0
0
-
238
NatTheCat
in April 12th, 2007 @ 19:08I know that this is a very controversial topic, but why can’t we use nuclear power as an alternative to forms of fuel that produce C02? I know that many people are extremely frightened of any nuclear reactors in their country after the Chernoble ( I don’t think I spelled that right) and the 3-mile-island disasters, but technology has far advanced since then. Others are concerned about nuclear waste. Technologies exist that can recycle nuclear waste. However, the result of this is high-grade plutonium that can be used in the making of nuclear bombs. But new technologies exist to safely store plutonium. I am not talking about the Mount Shasta plan. Scientists have developed a process of encasing plutonium in tiny graphite balls, so that the nuclear waste inside can never get hot enough to melt the graphite.
Still not conviced? Look at France. They have many nuclear reactors crammed in to a country the size of Texas. They are using nuclear energy to a great advantage. No nuclear disasters have occured. They are a great example.
Even if you are against Nuclear energy, think about this: The earth is in a crisis. Think hurricane Katrina was a coincidence? Think that the melting glaciers will freeze right back up again come December? Nuclear energy is the best option, and if we don’t act soon, it will rapidly become the ONLY option.
0
0
-
239
E2MB
in April 12th, 2007 @ 21:35238 – That sorta makes sense.
0
0
-
240
nerdz__r00l
in April 13th, 2007 @ 16:44238-yup. Thats what I think, too.
0
0
-
241
Beavo the Great
in April 13th, 2007 @ 19:50238-GO NUCLEAR ENERGY!! *does nuclear energy dance* Nuclear can be recycled, as you said. And there is so little of it.
0
0
-
242
Bob
in April 13th, 2007 @ 20:32NUCLEAR ENERGY IS NOT RENEWABLE. We’re just going to use up uranium the same way we’ve used up fossil fuels. Nuclear power is not carbon emission free, when you look at the release of C02 when mining, processing, and transporting the uranium. All these factors together are equivalent to emissions from burning natural gas for fuel. Also, the thermal pollution that comes from nuclear plants is enough to destroy entire ecosystems. The amount of heat released is the same as the heat released from a 15-kiloton nuclear bomb explosion. It’s even more expensive – nuclear energy has been estimated at about 12 cents per kilowatt-hour while wind energy has been estimated at 4 cents per kilowatt-hour. The UN announced in 2001 that nuclear energy was not an effective method of reducing climate change.
Ok, all done now.
0
0
-
243
e~a, whimsical dreamer
in April 13th, 2007 @ 22:03I laugh at the irony of coming across an argument on nuclear power right when I’m studing the Option F: Fuels and Energy in IB chem. Thanks for helping me study!^_^ “A nuclear power plant uses much less fuel than a comparable fossil fuel plant. A rough estimate is that it takes 17,000 kilograms of coal to produce the same amount of electricity as 1 kilogram of nuclear uranium fuel.” – my chem teacher who’s worked in the field. And really, why do you say CO2 doesn’t cause global warming when scientific evidence shows that it does? (yes, I didn’t post evidence for that but it is easy to find and I could tell you)
128- ahem. When one is gay or lesbian one does not simply wake up and think “hmm, today I’ll start being gay!” it can be a severe struggle as many people are hateful and cruel towards people who are gay. Imagine slowly realizing that you could possibly like guys/girls and not the other way around and being terrifed to admit it because you would be shunned and feared. People are so weirdly afraid of what’s unknown that they protect themselves with hate. How do you know that the people next to you on the bus, in the hallways at school, in a post on museblog aren’t suffering from being ostracized because of something that they themselves are not sure of?
0
0
-
244
FrigidSymphony
in April 14th, 2007 @ 12:02238: because all the oil companies don’t want to go out of business, so they use their influnce over politicians to block progress towards alternative fuel.
So, if anyone is brazen enough to try to defend Bush and the Iraq war… I’m waiting.
0
0
-
245
Elizabeth
in April 14th, 2007 @ 19:08244- but politicians, as dumb as they are, know that there will be an end to petrolium soon, and you’d think that they’d want to get in on the new form of energy, and nuclear energy would be just up their alley, they could restrict the production of it and all that so there is one company that makes it, and of course these politicians would be making money from it in some way (like Haliburtan) maybe they haven’t thought of it yet…maybe us Musers are smarter than the politicians!!!!!!!(not that i’d be at all surprised if that was true…)
0
0
-
246
Shadowkat
in April 15th, 2007 @ 12:21I’m going to stay on the other threads until this subject is kept on the GW thread.
0
0
-
247
FrigidSymphony
in April 15th, 2007 @ 13:48245: unfortunately, when the politician is kept afloat by big donations from oil companies, he’s not about to do anything that would hurt his friends, is he…
0
0
-
248
E2MB
in April 21st, 2007 @ 22:12Why is this thread still open? There’s a Hot Topics v. 2007.3 and Hot Topics v. 2007.4!
0
0
