My issue with 3/5 is that it's a "slap in the face" to black people. Sort'a like flying the "stars and bars". I'm glad it doesn't bother you. I'm pretty sure, were the situation reversed, it would bother me.
Slavery was already in decline. Then the cotton gin made large scale cotton production feasible, which drove the demand for labor (especially "free" labor - I prefer to regard it as "stolen" but I'm one of those northern white liberals). Of course, that's just a theory, although it's not new with me. No way to prove a historical cause and effect.
Yep. The situation has massively changed since then, however. It no longer takes weeks to get from one colony to another. Folks no longer owe their primary political allegiance to a state (state as in Massachusetts, not state as in this country). IMHO it was a check and balance that has since turned out to be more trouble than it might be worth.
Clearly it's not so much trouble that we have the political will to do something about it - even when a situation like the 2000 election happens - so my non-preference for it doesn't matter much at all...

Separate bars. :)

I'm looking for a secretary...how do you look in a skirt.

Honestly, I don't think anyone thinks about it. Nothing will change the fact that was once a thriving institution.

Sure, a lot has change since then but human nature is essentially the same. Moreover, our government is supposed to be difficult.

Just as a BTW, the democratic institution they had most experience with was the governance system of native Americans. For instance "King" Philip was called that because we didn't have a word for a leader who had been selected not by bloodline.
Our new england town meetings seem to have their roots in that "everyone gets to speak, decision by acclamation" that was part of that system. I'm pretty sure Ben Franklin makes some mention of Indian governance in his biography - in the part about his attempts to organize a common colonial defense just before what we now call the French and Indian wars (sorry about vagueness, it's been 30+ years...). Note also that this was the system of the tribes in the north east - no idea what the rest of 'em were doing...

<joe>"Only thing missing is Riots to complete the 1968/69 appearance."
What about the wild drug-laiden orgies and cool concerts with good music?




<Cybersamuri>"I'm just trying to figure out which country I want to move to. "
Holand is nice, but i hear that it's really socialist. Like 2 clicks shy of a welfare state.

Also, Iv'e talked to a couple people who live in New Zealand, and they say that the cops really don't give a shit about peoples civil liberties there. They just passed a bunch of drug laws that are pretty much PATRIOT act on steroids. Cops there now have the right to search you or your car/home, tap phones/internet, stop you on the street for no reason. All this without due process or reasonable cause. All they have to say is "I thought he may or may not have had drugs on him"

Haven't heard anything bad about Astralia :-)



<toastyghost>"Yeah it sounds like you're all some pretty smart motherfsckers. You make a lot of sense. Thank you for your insight."
Quit being such a little fu<king bitch. What are you, Mrs.Duchebag the new English teacher? STFU.

I think it is a characteristic of those 'not in power' to want to 'improve' the system,
no shortage of agendas

Some added info I came across recently:

It seems that while North Korea is a big problem, their economy is crumbling, and it's bound to turn into the next Cuba: a tourist attraction, without any attractions. In short, it should collapse under its own weight; it's just a waiting game at this point. Does anyone have any more info on this?

Otherwise, what concerns me the most is that a lot of people voted for Bush, simply because their religious beliefs won't let them vote for someone that's for abortion, and gay civil unions (not "marriage"). The Democrat position is that, as per the constitution, and basic Human Rights, one cannot discriminate against people based on religion and sex (which may or may not include sexual preference). So while God fearing people are against abortion, they don't seem to understand that a country doesn't have to be run as per that one religion: it must protect all of its citizens, regardless of their religious convictions, and the bottom line is that while abortions are legal, you still have a choice, and it's up to your own faith to do the right thing. Otherwise, this country, IMO, is similarly fanatic as some of these countries that we're objecting to...

Let's see, time to find some contradictions in your argument. If this is the land of the free, aren't those churches free to say that voting for Kerry is a sin? Just because they disagree doesn't mean that you can deny them the ability to say what they like. Can I please have an example of how censorship is out of control? I've seen no examples of it myself, so I would like to know how it is out of control. Also, last I checked, the responsibility for ensuring the constitution is not violated is the court system. If you have a problem with something make an issue of it. Last I checked most laws have been decided to be constitutional. Also, can I ask why it's 14,000 "Americans" that die from guns each year? Are they not really Americans, so you have to put them in quotations? I agree that something needs to be done about gun violence, but I would like to see a suggestion about it. I think that continued enforcement of the current laws is a good start, with stricter background checks, and things like that. Dissent is the foundation of democracy, but without ideas, just saying something is wrong is pointless. If you are so strongly against things, why don't you have suggestions or ideas?

This is where i disagree, it's called separation of church and state. No church should indorse a political party, it is blasphemy. True christians love everyone, no matter what and don't shun away people. Church and state are a recipe for poison.
This is just one Ever heard of google?
Obviously, you don't know what the "patriot act" is. They also have a "right" to view other peoples computer activities(RIAA) even though it's unconstitutional to invade MY privacy. Here's an example
That's not what i was getting at.
That's where Canada and America are different, not in control laws, but by other variables. Canada's press doesn't try to scare Canadians, they aren't led by fear.
If saying that churches deciding on our president is wrong, then i feel for you. This is why i want to move, because when people are upset and frusterated and voice their opinions, they're shutoff over a lack of "ideas". I've said what i wanted to say and i believe in an unpartisan nation, where everyone can decide for themselves and not be scared by evil churches that preach blasphemy to our people. A nation where i can turn on the news and have them give me NEWS, not their pompous rich-bitch opinions.

Thank you, and Amen to that!


Did anyone catch some of the European headlines?

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...onal_headlines

Among others:

Daily Mirror (UK)

Tageszeitung newspaper (Germany)


newsmagazine Facts (Switzerland)

L'Hebdo (Switzerland)

(Granted some of these publications are pretty liberal...)

Ben:
You forgot Poland! I bet they had good things to say :)

Otago is a decent university. I have a research grant that collaborates with a chemist there and my grad student said it was a pretty fun campus. I am going down to Taupo and Wellington for that project in Feb 05 I think for a few weeks.

I'll just say we disagree on this, and leave it at that
So, cracking down on what is defined to be indecent by a majority is censorship?
They have the right, with the proper authorizations. They cannot just decide to search your computer. Your rights are not violated by them being able to do it.
I agree something is wrong with the media, but they are better than nothing. I also disagree with your characterization of the church. Your church should be able to project their opinion, but you still ultimately have to decide. I would like to know where exactly you would move to, as to me, even with all the problems, America is the best place to live. There are many countries where we could not have a debate like this, but America gives that right.

this is pretty sick shit
who defines "evil"
who defines "blasphemy" ?
who is "our people" ?

yes, YOUR church is to be feared
this is crap even by geek bits standards

Geee, thats clever. Did you think of that all by yourself. It sounds vaugly farmiliar

LOL. Just because i bring up something that has been pointed out before doesn't make it invalid, is that all you could come up with? :rolleyes:
When a church indorses something, it is dangerous. Churches are for worshipping, not used for political gain. But thats how most of these crooks get away with things, hiding behind the christian name and people think it's ok.
PS: When a church contradicts what the bible has to say about loving and accepting EVERYONE, then I question that church and their true motives.

and I question fools and their 'good books'

I think once you convince people that there is an old man who lives in the sky and he can see everything you do, you can convince people of practically anything.

-George Carlin

http://twotom.home.mindspring.com/07-god.jpg

not just that, consider the concept of 'heaven', not to mention 72 waiting virgins, etc. etc.

not being a gambler I am hessitant to bet my life on some good thing in the afterlife... yet 72 virgins soulds like a a worthy gamble, I am just waiting for the WI Jihad to kick off :)

Personally I just find there to be too many disturbing simililarities between some of the rhetoric coming out of these evangelical senators, and with the super-strict islamic states that the USA media points at as being harsh and extreme.

I feel that this is what upsets many other nations. Not that they accept super-strict religious based states, but that somehow they're now caught in the middle of a religious war.

Islamic militants are always there on TV saying how this is a Christian vs Islam issue when it comes to the USA. Not that many sane people outside of these militants actually believe it, but the increasing alignment between Christianity and the State in the USA certainly does add a lot more merit to the otherwise insane babble of the militants.

Exactly, thanks for making that point more clear Cathar.

Cathar
religion is the US is voluntary, and of the lunatic variety that one's superstition prefers
in those "harsh and extreme" states you refer to the religion is not voluntary at all

quite a difference thank you

hehe, one of my favorite comedians. And a great statement.

Just making an observation disguised as a witty comment. isss alll good. ;)

What about in those parts of the country where "Evolution" is banned from the school curriculum, and Creationism is taught in its place.

Am not saying that the USA is like the Islamic states, but that there does appear to be a strong underlying desire by certain evangelical senators to turn the USA into one forcibly by enshrining their religious beliefs in State law.

no, not so
the separation of church and state is well established
you are listening to vote pandering (talking about things that cannot happen to elicit votes)

only, I believe (??), the 'bible schools' teach that anti-science shit; soul brothers of the islamic schools for sure

Ran across this
Found it interesting.

Cathar: «...but the increasing alignment between Christianity and the State in the USA...»

Bill:«religion is the US is voluntary, and of the lunatic variety that one's superstition prefers».

To me it's not a question of exercising your religion freely, but questioning the role of religious beliefs in politics and it's use to justify and implement political actions.Ex. abortion.

Without discussing this subject per se, when you see Mr. Bush using as a justification for being anti-abortion his religious beliefs, one wonders...
Is it possible to give such a simple black and white answer to this subject based only on YOUR (his) belief?

Why even talk about values?
And the penal system - The Bible gives them an easy answer, if you're caught robbing someone cut their hand - it's so simple.

When you see a graduate officer saying that God spoke to him and steered his hand just moments before going into battle, you at least find it amusing.

If in the past one could say that certain qualities lacked in a certain head of state, and it could serve as a simple explanation for some strange options, now this ever increasing mixture of religion with politics and it's influence in how a country views it's domestic and foreign relations, managed to attract some bright minds to their side and thus establish an official criteria.
This is where the the two sides are converging (muslims and americans).

In the muslim case, the political leaders are also religious leaders but not iliterate, on the contrary the form a group of people with high knowledge among the rest and can impose a certain view of the ideal society and values.

Bill when you say «the separation of church and state is well established», does this also means that just for having democratic elections a democracy is established?