EBSB52

I don't see that at all. We don't have unemployment insurance in this country for the benefit of unemployed individuals, we have UI for the benefit of those who still have their jobs, because if you begin taking money out of the economy, the effects, including unemployment, are going to be exponential. Personally, I favor certain social programs, because I understand that the money they cost will be made back in the long run with a more productive society that is better qualified to participate in an international economy in the future. I don't see liberal solutions perpetuating problems. I like the dichotomy to run like this: Supply side economys (trickle down) give money to corps to do the rightthing with it. Hoover invented this form of economic strategy and it worked well for him. Then Reagan tried a scaled down version fo it and it workd for the shortrun, but his deficit spending has played hell on us since. Consumer side economics, which is what you ellude to with your rationale for UI, is where the gov gives money to people in need, who will then immediatley spend it to survive. All I say is this, look at the 8 years of Clinton and the economy, and then look at the 12 years before and 4 years after and we will see which form works for the masses and which works for the few.

I don't see the differences you do. Today's "liberal" seems to fit very well with the definition given by Billvon IMO. I see the difference very clearly. A liberal by the definition that billvon quoted, when confronted with a problem such as poverty, might look for new solutions to the problem that could benefit society as a whole. In reality, liberals are likely to tax the taxpayers to pay for programs that often perpetuate the problem, or pass legislation like affirmative action. linz Again, the very conservative US SUp Ct has rubber stamped AA for now and made language in there to support it for 25 years to come. Please don't make this a flaming liberal issue as is commonly thought. As for social ills and paying for it, yes, they will pass the burdon onto tax payers. But the cons will deficit spend and pass billions onto corps like Haliburton, so corporate welfare is the same as conventional welfare.

I'd take issue with that. Contrast: "I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." with current pushes for affirmative action (i.e. judgment by color of skin). If color of skin is the primary criterion of minority, then please axplain South African Apartheid considering the whote people represented only a scant few by number. Point is, contemporary minority status is defined by class rather than color. Also, the current conservative US Sup Ct recently upheld that U of Michigan suit about Affirmative Action in admissions, so it is both the liberals and cons that support AA, hence class is the issue with AA not race. We can also talk about this Bush movement for Mexican immigration, which is about cheap labor, hence class, not love of Mexican Nationals by Bush.

Wait, I'venever head that and look at them as polar opposites. The Libertarians answer to social problems (health, etc) is to let the church dispose of them w/o any/much governmental help. Modern day Libertarianism is akin to the neo-cons IMO.

So a "conservative" edit your comment might be - "Maybe if the left had more followers than the right ... they would be considered more effective." Hard to argue with that kind of logic. Thanks for the cut-n-paste, but what I'm simply saying is that the left seems to be less effective due to having fewer members. This is an end/means type argument, but it doesn't mean the left has a devalued mission because they have fewer follwers. That would be like saying that you always get what you pay for, bigger is better, etc...

Pretty clear to me. Yesterday, liberals were a good thing. They brought about great changes like civil rights and fair labor laws. They still do, who do you think opposed Bush's Overtime Bill/Law? Who backs labor unions and who destroys them? I fail to see your point here in regard to, "civil rights and fair labor laws." But today, they represent crappy things, like baby killing, gay marriage, and calling handicapped people "handicapable". "baby killing" - as in abortion rights, as opposed to loss of control of one's body? It must be one way or the other. "gay marriage" - as in the right to convert benefits and asets to another person the individual claims as their life partner? Seems pretty harmless to me. "handicappable" - as in what? Not sure what this means; expanding the definition of who is handicapped?

It's definitely a two way street. However, I don't think the left has been nearly as effective at it of late. Whether it's due to a desire to take the high road or lack of political savy probably depends upon one's perspective. The left tends to over-discuss issues and try to get to the core of issues, whereas I see the conservative protocol often just making quick decisons. The left has been disempowered based primarily on the convergence of the fiscal right and conservative right since the late 60's, which is why they are less effective; fewer members. Maybe if the left had more followers than the right did they would be considered to be more effective.

Ya, what are they gonna do, go to the cahier window at a casino and cash em 50 bucks at a time? It would bevirtually impossible to cash in even a 1000 bucks worth w/o being detected.... funny stuff

What happened to whom? DISCLAIMER: I have never used marijuana and didn't even know what it was until I just look up the dictionary definition. I have never smoked marijuana and didn't even inhale when I didn't smoke it.

Quotes and cites are to be taken in context and weighted appropriately by use of common reason, not special interest, IMO. With that, the Bible is based upon faith, not fact, so I feel it can be quoted with an asterisk pertaining it to be limited within its context and boundary. That means it isn't usually suitable to be cited as a general basis for fact and the construction of life, unless read within a group that subscribes to that faith. A while back we were having a discussion in here about the use hyphens in a persons origin (eg. African-American). Someone posted a quote stated in 1915 from Teddy Roosevelt and wanted it to be taken as contemporary. Teddy said that hyphens were a bad idea based upon them causing divide. I disagreed that the contemporary application was valid by saying that: 1. The quote was made at the start of WWI 2. Women could not yet vote 3. White women could be deported under antimiscegination laws for marrying other than a white male 4. We were 27ish years from Japanese-Amrican internment 5. We still had Indian Schools for American Indians 6. And a myriad of other attrocities So with all of these atrocities still being performed within the laws of American law and policy, is it contemporarily imprudent to cite words of a white man from back then and expect it carry the same application as it would now with all of the afformentioned atrocites abolished? As for US Sup Ct cites, some have time limits and some are timeless, like the Dread Scott decision, Brown vs Board of Education, Roe vs Wade, Miranda vs Arizona, Mapp vs Ohio, and many other cases. What makes these decisions ageless and timeless? Probably the controvercial nature of their matter and the subsequent impact upon US law and policy. Is it fair that some decisions carry a short lifespan and some are ageless? Maybe, maybe not. It is, however, the way it is based upon popular belief and subscription by the authority. As for citing the Bible in discussion and application to everyday life in the US, the US Const provides language that disallows the establishment of a religion by the government, so I find it void to cite religion in that context. If discussing religion or other subjects based upon morality that have no governing jurisdiction and someone wants to cite religion, I say have at it. I think what Vanilla was trying to impart was that some people seem to have no individuality when they constantly refer to a Bible to answer simple questions - I agree.

I am (more SM than A&P, although AP, IA, FCC, PP), and you must be an A&P based upon your lack of understanding and kneejerk reactions without investigation.... just kidding ole chum, ahh, isn't all this joking just fun? You probably came into this late in the game, but certain people are suspened/banned for nothing, while others are almost invited to be as naty as they want to bait others into making the comments certain moderators can use as fodder to ban/suspend.

Thanks for answering - I'm just looking for parameters. So it is acceptable to state that a person essentially has no clue in regard to an issue, topic or interpretation? As I said, I'm not hurt, but my reaction would be as nice as his and then snowball into a messy situation. I was suspended for 2 weeks for a comment about like that one, so I'm looking for guidlines. Either it's appropriate or not..... Lemme give it a shot with two examples: That's not a personal attack but it isn't helpful unless followed up by some reasonings as to how those events were misunderstood. While essentially expressing the same sentiment as the first case but in stronger terms, this one is most definitely a personal attack. Even following it up with an explanation would not mitigate the fact that it is a personal attack. Note that both of the above statements can be reasonably seen as ad hominem (defined by M/W as marked by an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made). They just differ in terms of degree. Which, among other things, is why it's so difficult to provide a precise definition of what is and is not a personal attack. And without a precise definition, we're basically left with an "I know one when I see one" caculation. Wayne And without a precise definition, we're basically left with an "I know one when I see one" caculation. WHich is the US Sup Ct's language in regard to pornography; are you a law student? Basically, what mnealtx wrote is a personal attack since the word, "your" was in there. I guess if he would have written, 'people with the understanding of this matter like you have presented have a flawed understanding....' then it still would have been a veiled attack of a light degree. Point is, I was and Kallend was suspended for similar comments..... membership has its priviledges.

On the other hand, many people do believe strongly in the Bible. So if the people you are addressing are in that group, then the quote can have more impact than if you just use your own words. . There is nothing wrong with that. Personally, I am not biased against the Bible, or what it stands for AT ALL. I've never stated my personal beliefs and whether or not I am religious, pious, spiritual or whether I read and believe in the Holy Bible myself. Furthermore, I think that the teachings of Jesus Christ are beautiful and wise. The Old Testament also has so much to teach us. I find no fault in people who live by the Bible's teachings, and I have no problem with whatever religion that someone may or may not be. I just do not wish to influence others or to insult others who have a different religion by quoting something to someone who doesn't believe in that particular religion or who doesn't take the Bible as gospel. I would never hesitate to quote from the Bible, when speaking to my mother or grandmother, because I know that they sometimes like to use religious sayings, but I would prefer to use my own words when speaking to the general public. I find it to be more inclusive of everyone. ***Some people will pay more respect to a quote from a famous person, than from the everyday person. I do not like that way of thinking. I understand what you mean, but I would rather make my point through my own words. I totally agree with you with this thread, especially in the above. You don't just find this mentality with the church, but in college. Tenured professors subscribe to this crap too, they quote a doctor (PhD) and think the words are golden and infallable. I think some people look for absolutes as a framework from which to live and modify things from there. Problem is that life isn't that tidy and foundational things change all the time.

Thanks for answering - I'm just looking for parameters. So it is acceptable to state that a person essentially has no clue in regard to an issue, topic or interpretation? As I said, I'm not hurt, but my reaction would be as nice as his and then snowball into a messy situation. I was suspended for 2 weeks for a comment about like that one, so I'm looking for guidlines. Either it's appropriate or not.....

I agree, the P90 is a good pistol if on a budget, but not my first choice. I have a 9mm Glock which is the sweetest shooting gun I own - never played withthe .45 tho - bet it's smooth too

Your understanding of the concept of "separation of church and state" is flawed. See, and with all of this talk of personal attacks, is this neccessary? That was not (and is not) a personal attack. I apologize for the confusion if you took it as one, but the statement stands. It IS an attack, as the word, "Your" makes it personal. I'm not butt-hurt, but my response would make many cry foul, so I think we need to draw the line of acceptable/not acceptable.... Moderators??? Your apology of confusion defers nothing but to reiterate the personal attack.

Got to DZ, was immed invited onto a 5-way track dive, did quick gear check, got onto acft with helmet and wrist altimeter inside (Ithought), so I went for it just after boarding the acft but found it wasn't inside helmet (figured I dropped it in the car or wherever). Anyway, I catch the camera guy 2k b4 break and just as I catch him the alti flies out of my pocket, where I had last put it.

Your take on it is possible, but by no means a foregone conclusion. I don't think it's at all ludicrous. Personally, I'm surprised it's been tolerated for so long without any serious challenge. This case has nothing to do with stopping the mother from raising her child the way she sees fit. It's about separation of church and state. I'm not understanding why the fact that the parents are divorced and have different personal beliefs has any bearing on the legitimacy of the case. -Josh This case has nothing to do with stopping the mother from raising her child the way she sees fit. It's about separation of church and state. Exactly, well put in the entire post. See, what you've done is to separate the elements rather than just convolute them all. Reminds me of the recent football stadium tax measure - the proponents made it about football when in reality it was about tax..... the local idiots voted it in and then whined about the tax increase.

-Josh While it's true that the case was previously dismissed due to this "technicality", and not on the merits of the case, it's no joke. It's how law is supposed to work. I see it as a duck-n-weave by the court. The dismissal was more of a ruling on legal standing. I think they're buying time because of the great conflict of interest here. IIRC, the court was concerned that taking this case would set other unanticipated precedents for parents that don't have custody. That's the sad thing here, the court did make a ruling that will be used as Stare Decisis has been set. In future cases involving any kind of child custody case in every state, parties will refer to the, "Under God" ruling. It could be about where to take their daughter for ballet lessons. The custodial paent could argue the ruling as them havin virtually all decision-making power over the child, so a precedent was set, just not about the pledge. So, while I sympathize with his case, I think the court made the right decision last time. Well, they made no decision about the pledge, but they did about child custody rights, so it's a sad thing to me. I hope the *substance* of his complaint will be addressed this time around. Big time, but I think they will just ignore the case and act as if they already heard it. On another note, it's funny that the same people that endear the previous decision, generally the moral right, would be pissed if the mother discovered she was gay, kicked outthe hubby, moved in the GF and the hubby objected while the high court said, "sorry, you are not the primary custodian."

I don't see the victimization. However, look at half the custody/support battles and find victims I guess. It's a hard world when it comes to adults acting like kids, meaning divorce situations.

Your understanding of the concept of "separation of church and state" is flawed. See, and with all of this talk of personal attacks, is this neccessary?

This should have been in the original thread - oops

The mother is mortified that the guy is furthering his personal political agenda by dragging his daughter into this. That is her opinion of his actions. Besides, this is no different than a Christian family placing their child in a church-based school to ensure they get their religious teachings, so they would be furthering their religious/political agenda too, that is, if the former is. The husband should be more concerned that the child's mother and custodian is a Christian than "under God" in an oath in school. When you learn this about the child's mother and custodian your jaw just drops and that alone tells you this guy is no hero. Why does the father have a duty to the mother? Since the mother dissented, she has no duty ot the father. I said that he was my hero, not her hero or their hero. He is dedicating his life to the separation of church and state - he's awesome. BTW, the mother is the primary custodian, not the exclusive custodian. Show me 1 case where the mother is both competent and wants the child where she is not established as the primary custodian by the court.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=533&e=3&u=/ap/20050106/ap_on_re_us/pledge_of_allegiance So the father had no legl parental stnading since he was not the primary custodian. WHat a joke, he was still a parent - he should have legal standing. Now the US Sup Ct will have to either hear the case and adjudge its merits or summarily ignore it via refusal to certify; probably the latter. At least he's making them show their hand. He's basically my hero

Really, I get the distinct impression of community here, even from those with radically different ideas. Rather like Crossfire on the TV. Maybe I'm just too straightlaced for Bonfire but I find it mostly silly noise. Ya, I agree!