If the community wants it be their business then they should have it as their business. Six elitists shouldn't be able to impose their morality on the whole country.
oh, but six elitists should be able to impose their morality on, say a quarter million people instead, just because they have a problem with blow jobs? please.
oh, but six elitists should be able to impose their morality on, say a quarter million people instead, just because they have a problem with blow jobs? please.
This is where you go wrong. The Court wouldn't be imposing anything. The legislature of the state would be doing that. And the people could change the legislative decision if they so choose.
Many people, and I am one of them, are concerned that a conscious sense of moral rectitude has slipped away from civic life. I am not convinced that it is because we have become more tolerant of people's private acts. I do think that a person's private acts are an indication of character, but I do not think that any person or entity should be allowed to sanction someone's love.
if someone's getting a blow job, and you're not the one receiving it, what business of it is yours or anyone else's? If the community wants it be their business then they should have it as their business
NOSEY PEOPLE!
that is how gossip spreads and witch trials get started!
As long as no-one is hurt in mytheir sexual acts it is no-ones business but the people Ithey allow to know mytheir business. ;)
we talked about politics/bedroom/privacy issue... I was looking at it through the eyes of a Monogamous Heterosexual-I am undecided I think on the issue of a homosexual relationship -that goes into another issue of homosexual marriages - the second you OK homosexual marriages is the second you OK their private lives in their bedrooms. But then again who am I to judge them-that is God's place not mine- But I don't want to live in a Sodom and Gomorrah.
Note: how Sodom sounds alot like Saddam ;p what were his parents thinkin'?
When and how did you decide that you were a heterosexual?
Is it possible that your heterosexuality is just a phase that you may grow out of?
Is it possible your heterosexuality stems from a neurotic fear of others of the same sex?
If you've never slept with a person of the same sex, is it possible that all you need is a good gay or lesbian lover?
To whom have you disclosed your heterosexual tendencies? How did he or she react?
Why do you heterosexuals feel compelled to seduce others into your life-style?
Why do you insist on flaunting your heterosexuality? Why can't you just be what you are and keep quiet about it?
Would you want your children to be heterosexual knowing the problems that they'd face?
A disproportionate majority of child molesters are heterosexual. Do you consider it safe to expose your children to heterosexual teachers?
With all the societal support marriage receives, the divorce rate is spiraling. Why are there so few stable relationships among heterosexuals?
Why do heterosexuals place so much emphasis on sex?
Considering the menace of overpopulation, how could the human race survive if everyone were heterosexual like you?
Could you trust a heterosexual therapist to be objective? Don't you fear (s)he might be inclined to influence you in the direction of her/his own leanings?
How can you become a whole person if you limit yourself to compulsive, exclusive heterosexuality, and fail to develop you natural, healthy homosexual potential?
There seem to be very few happy heterosexuals. Techniques have been developed that might enable you to change if you really want to. Have you considered trying aversion therapy?
Yeah, well that was then and this is now and the SC now says that no state can regulate the bedroom anymore, no matter what sexual choices people make in the privacy of those rooms.
That isn't the Court's job. As usual you show your extreme lack of understanding of how the political and judicial process is supposed to work. You and your ilk are a danger to freedom.
I thought we WERE talking about freedom -- people's freedom to do what they want in private. We are talking about the system and the damage that is being done either through ignorance of the role of each part of the political process or simply because certain people think they know better and misuse their power to see that the result is achieved.
nah. we're talking about jethro's freedom to sit on his high horse and judge people. No were talking about a political system in which everyone is supposed to have input. The Court has taken that away in this instance. They think they know better and they were hell bent to impose that view regardless of their limited role in the process. Soon there will be no political input from the people even at your local city council or school board because these people think they know better. They don't.
Well, he's free to do that if it trips his trigger, as long as he doesn't get laws passed that reflect that judgment.
If the laws pass that means there is support for them, maybe not a majority but substantial support nonetheless. If the laws pass and they are constitutional then that's life. You seem to want to be circumvent the system to achieve what it is you want. That is not freedom. The system working is what is of paramount importance. People having their input and attempting to achieve their goals through the process. Of course, your view won't prevail everytime and you have to live with it IF it is a result of the system working properly.
The only problem I have with the decision is they cite other countries rulings in the decision. I think they could have struck it down under equal protection. But I am not a lwayer either. To me the decision should have been based on the U.S.A's laws and the Constitution not other countries.
Justice Antonin Scalia isn't perfect either. Consider this from your quoted article:
"When the court interprets the Constitution, he has written, U.S. attitudes about what is decent and right -- not foreign ones -- are what should matter."
Isn't the constitution and the rule of law what matters and not the current fads or "what is decent and right"? What I think is decent and right can be very different from what you think it should be. That is why we have laws to follow and ways to change them if we disagree with them.
the jethro's of this country have kept it running for over 200 years. if it wasn't for the circumventing of Darwin's law they would still be doing a great job.
You say it's a price you're willing to pay. Would you still be so willing if you or your wife or your child were passed over because of someone who made more points on the skin-color scale?
I don't think Greenberg was spouting bullshit. I think Maureen Dowd and her ilk hate Thomas because a conservative black man doesn't meet their needs for shaping society in their desired form. In fact, he threatens them.
I didn't read the entire site you linked, but I did read both cases for and against affirmative action, and I found the anti case more compelling.
Diversity can be a good thing in itself -- for many companies it makes a lot of sense. For example, if you want to expand your market base, it helps a lot of you have a diverse sales force. Many companies are waking up to this. But I don't think affirmative action has been the driving force. Even if it were, though, I don't think it should continue indefinitely. The American people have a sense of fairness, and they accepted affirmative action as an interim solution. But they can also tell when enough is enough.
I think Maureen Dowd and her ilk hate Thomas because a conservative black man doesn't meet their needs for shaping society in their desired form. In fact, he threatens them.
Boy, the New York Times changes from irrelevant rag to shaper of society, almost by the day, here.
Muskwa. Do you think Clarence Thomas was nominated by Bush I on the basis of his skin color? There was also speculation that his resume was a bit thin for someone advancing to such a high position.
And. from what I recall, he replaced and African American justice who retired or died.
There was also speculation that his resume was a bit thin for someone advancing to such a high position.
GW is the finest example of affirmative action ever. Here is a man who jokes about how he peaked in first grade, was at best a "C" student and yet gained admission to Yale, was allowed to go to the head of the Guard list in order to avoid having to fight for his country and then blew off his duty there, was basically given businesses to run into the ground, spent most of his adult life drunk and partying and for this he was awarded the White House.
More like Al Gore. The guy spoke like he was a kindergarten teacher. He had the intelligence of one, too.
The dork would have exposed his cowardice in the full had he been President. G.W. has handled it all with leadership and class. Clinton and Gore didn't face half the issues that George W. has confronted. Why? They were too intimidated by touchy issues. 8 years of Clinton and what did he accomplish? Nothing. They just breezed through eight years acting like they were achieving something. All the bs about what they did for the economy was smokescreen. Reagan and Bush stablized the economy after Carter and Mondale brought us triple digit inflation. What they did achieve was a host of scandals. The Clintons and Gores made the Kennedy's proud. I'll tell you that much.
President Bush not only graduated from Yale, but gained a masters from Harvard Business School, while Mr. Gore flunked out of divinity school and dropped out of law school.
President Bush not only graduated from Yale, but gained a masters from Harvard Business School, while Mr. Gore flunked out of divinity school and dropped out of law school.
uh...you left out that Al graduated from Harvard with honors and a degree in government. After that he went to Nam for six months, unlike Bush (who pulled strings to get into the Guard and then never bothered to even show up for much of it). After that he actually had a real job. And he didn't flunk out of divinity school, he dropped out.
I'm no fan of Gore's (Al too is a pretty good example of affirmative action, but nowhere in the same league as Bush in that regard), but to think that GW is more intelligent than...hell...just about anyone is to live in denial.
In his sophomore year at Harvard, Gore's grades were lower than any semester recorded on Bush's transcript from Yale. He received his fair share of C-'s and D's while at Harvard as well. While at Vanderbilt Divinity School, Gore recieved F's in five of the eight classes he took over the course of three semesters.
As for his being a reporter in Nam for 6 months, I am sure that there were no strings pulled there. Not like he had bodyguards with him...OOPS, he did have bodyguards and never saw combat.
where was Bush when he was supposed to be doing Guard duty?
In his sophomore year at Harvard, Gore's grades were lower than any semester recorded on Bush's transcript from Yale. He received his fair share of C-'s and D's while at Harvard as well
"I am angry that so many of the sons of the powerful and well-placed... managed to wangle slots in Reserve and National Guard units...Of the many tragedies of Vietnam, this raw class discrimination strikes me as the most damaging to the ideal that all Americans are created equal and owe equal allegiance to their country." (Colin Powell’s autobiography, My American Journey, p. 148)
If the community wants it be their business then they should have it as their business. Six elitists shouldn't be able to impose their morality on the whole country.
oh, but six elitists should be able to impose their morality on, say a quarter million people instead, just because they have a problem with blow jobs? please.
oh, but six elitists should be able to impose their morality on, say a quarter million people instead, just because they have a problem with blow jobs? please.
This is where you go wrong. The Court wouldn't be imposing anything. The legislature of the state would be doing that. And the people could change the legislative decision if they so choose.
Be sure to set your VCR: http://www.booktv.org/General/index.asp?segID=3563&schedID=200
Many people, and I am one of them, are concerned that a conscious sense of moral rectitude has slipped away from civic life. I am not convinced that it is because we have become more tolerant of people's private acts. I do think that a person's private acts are an indication of character, but I do not think that any person or entity should be allowed to sanction someone's love.
And the Left demonizes the Right as racist every time someone even mildly questions affirmative action. Demonizing is done by both sides.
if someone's getting a blow job, and you're not the one receiving it, what business of it is yours or anyone else's? If the community wants it be their business then they should have it as their business
NOSEY PEOPLE!
that is how gossip spreads and witch trials get started!
As long as no-one is hurt in
mytheir sexual acts it is no-ones business but the peopleIthey allow to knowmytheir business. ;)I also need to possibly clarify something...
we talked about politics/bedroom/privacy issue...
I was looking at it through the eyes of a Monogamous Heterosexual-I am undecided I think on the issue of a homosexual relationship -that goes into another issue of homosexual marriages - the second you OK homosexual marriages is the second you OK their private lives in their bedrooms. But then again who am I to judge them-that is God's place not mine-
But I don't want to live in a Sodom and Gomorrah.
Note: how Sodom sounds alot like Saddam ;p
what were his parents thinkin'?
Heterosexual Questionnaire
What do you think caused your heterosexuality?
When and how did you decide that you were a heterosexual?
Is it possible that your heterosexuality is just a phase that you may grow out of?
Is it possible your heterosexuality stems from a neurotic fear of others of the same sex?
If you've never slept with a person of the same sex, is it possible that all you need is a good gay or lesbian lover?
To whom have you disclosed your heterosexual tendencies? How did he or she react?
Why do you heterosexuals feel compelled to seduce others into your life-style?
Why do you insist on flaunting your heterosexuality? Why can't you just be what you are and keep quiet about it?
Would you want your children to be heterosexual knowing the problems that they'd face?
A disproportionate majority of child molesters are heterosexual. Do you consider it safe to expose your children to heterosexual teachers?
With all the societal support marriage receives, the divorce rate is spiraling. Why are there so few stable relationships among heterosexuals?
Why do heterosexuals place so much emphasis on sex?
Considering the menace of overpopulation, how could the human race survive if everyone were heterosexual like you?
Could you trust a heterosexual therapist to be objective? Don't you fear (s)he might be inclined to influence you in the direction of her/his own leanings?
How can you become a whole person if you limit yourself to compulsive, exclusive heterosexuality, and fail to develop you natural, healthy homosexual potential?
There seem to be very few happy heterosexuals. Techniques have been developed that might enable you to change if you really want to. Have you considered trying aversion therapy?
do you think that there will be a whole bunch more homosexual sex if they can get married?
how will their getting married make it more of a Sodom and Gomorrah than it already is?
Yeah, well that was then and this is now and the SC now says that no state can regulate the bedroom anymore, no matter what sexual choices people make in the privacy of those rooms.
That isn't the Court's job. As usual you show your extreme lack of understanding of how the political and judicial process is supposed to work. You and your ilk are a danger to freedom.
I thought we WERE talking about freedom -- people's freedom to do what they want in private.
nah. we're talking about jethro's freedom to sit on his high horse and judge people.
Well, he's free to do that if it trips his trigger, as long as he doesn't get laws passed that reflect that judgment.
I thought we WERE talking about freedom -- people's freedom to do what they want in private. We are talking about the system and the damage that is being done either through ignorance of the role of each part of the political process or simply because certain people think they know better and misuse their power to see that the result is achieved.
nah. we're talking about jethro's freedom to sit on his high horse and judge people. No were talking about a political system in which everyone is supposed to have input. The Court has taken that away in this instance. They think they know better and they were hell bent to impose that view regardless of their limited role in the process. Soon there will be no political input from the people even at your local city council or school board because these people think they know better. They don't.
Well, he's free to do that if it trips his trigger, as long as he doesn't get laws passed that reflect that judgment.
If the laws pass that means there is support for them, maybe not a majority but substantial support nonetheless. If the laws pass and they are constitutional then that's life. You seem to want to be circumvent the system to achieve what it is you want. That is not freedom. The system working is what is of paramount importance. People having their input and attempting to achieve their goals through the process. Of course, your view won't prevail everytime and you have to live with it IF it is a result of the system working properly.
The only problem I have with the decision is they cite other countries rulings in the decision. I think they could have struck it down under equal protection. But I am not a lwayer either. To me the decision should have been based on the U.S.A's laws and the Constitution not other countries.
Supreme Court citing more foreign cases Scalia: Only U.S. views are relevant
Justice Antonin Scalia isn't perfect either. Consider this from your quoted article:
"When the court interprets the Constitution, he has written, U.S. attitudes about what is decent and right -- not foreign ones -- are what should matter."
Isn't the constitution and the rule of law what matters and not the current fads or "what is decent and right"? What I think is decent and right can be very different from what you think it should be. That is why we have laws to follow and ways to change them if we disagree with them.
Just as 9 Scalias would do unimaginable harm to our Nation, so too would 9 Warren Burgers.
But none could do as much as harm as the fairly large number of folds out there.
or the fairly large number of jethros.
the jethro's of this country have kept it running for over 200 years. if it wasn't for the circumventing of Darwin's law they would still be doing a great job.
aren't you tired yet? I mean..you should really lie down or something...you don't look to good
I don't look good, crabs? Have you looked at yourself lately? You know it could be the drugs!!!!
nah...it's from ridin' the bus...
All you do is jump in with your drivel ares. Come back when you have something meaningful to discuss.
Heard that before?....Mr. Hypocrisy?
All you do is jump in with your drivel ares. Come back when you have something meaningful to discuss.
ahhh. i see i get to start taking out the stress early today. blow me.
The court tried out an essentially political solution on a moral and theological problem. That is one of the various things homosexuality is -- a moral and theological problem, or question, if that sounds nicer. Not that theology never gets tangled up with politics. It happens all the time. The anguish arises when a purely political body -- in this case, the high court -- tries to resolve a moral question beyond its competence.
fold, the circumventing of Darwin's law is why you exist.
I'm sorry ares. I forgot it was ok for the liberals to do that.
Does the right to pursue one's individual morality transcend traditional social values? Is the state barred from enforcing the moral consensus? More to the point, is this a land where pornography, drugs and prostitution should be unregulated, where women should be allowed to have abortions at any time during their pregnancy, where same-sex couples can join together in marriage? If you accept that the state cannot enforce moral codes of conduct, then the answer to all of these questions is yes. It is against this backdrop that the Texas Sodomy ruling will unfold.
What Maureen Dowd is trying to say, in her snotty little bien-pensant, nice-little-French-restaurant-in-the-East-Sixties way, is that Clarence Thomas is not a member of the club. He is insufficiently grateful. He voices his own opinions instead of echoing those that are good for him, namely hers. The man is obviously sick, sick, sick.
I wish more people would speak up like Paul Greenberg does about what affirmative action really is -- and how it doesn't help blacks in the long run.
Bill, should affirmative action ever end? When?
You say it's a price you're willing to pay. Would you still be so willing if you or your wife or your child were passed over because of someone who made more points on the skin-color scale?
I don't think Greenberg was spouting bullshit. I think Maureen Dowd and her ilk hate Thomas because a conservative black man doesn't meet their needs for shaping society in their desired form. In fact, he threatens them.
I didn't read the entire site you linked, but I did read both cases for and against affirmative action, and I found the anti case more compelling.
Diversity can be a good thing in itself -- for many companies it makes a lot of sense. For example, if you want to expand your market base, it helps a lot of you have a diverse sales force. Many companies are waking up to this. But I don't think affirmative action has been the driving force. Even if it were, though, I don't think it should continue indefinitely. The American people have a sense of fairness, and they accepted affirmative action as an interim solution. But they can also tell when enough is enough.
I don't think Greenberg was spouting bullshit.
I think Maureen Dowd and her ilk hate Thomas because a conservative black man doesn't meet their needs for shaping society in their desired form. In fact, he threatens them.
Great point there, Muskwa. = )
Boy, the New York Times changes from irrelevant rag to shaper of society, almost by the day, here.
Muskwa. Do you think Clarence Thomas was nominated by Bush I on the basis of his skin color? There was also speculation that his resume was a bit thin for someone advancing to such a high position.
And. from what I recall, he replaced and African American justice who retired or died.
GW is the finest example of affirmative action ever. Here is a man who jokes about how he peaked in first grade, was at best a "C" student and yet gained admission to Yale, was allowed to go to the head of the Guard list in order to avoid having to fight for his country and then blew off his duty there, was basically given businesses to run into the ground, spent most of his adult life drunk and partying and for this he was awarded the White House.
Now that'swhat I call affirmative action.
More like Al Gore. The guy spoke like he was a kindergarten teacher. He had the intelligence of one, too.
The dork would have exposed his cowardice in the full had he been President. G.W. has handled it all with leadership and class. Clinton and Gore didn't face half the issues that George W. has confronted. Why? They were too intimidated by touchy issues. 8 years of Clinton and what did he accomplish? Nothing. They just breezed through eight years acting like they were achieving something. All the bs about what they did for the economy was smokescreen. Reagan and Bush stablized the economy after Carter and Mondale brought us triple digit inflation. What they did achieve was a host of scandals. The Clintons and Gores made the Kennedy's proud. I'll tell you that much.
you are honestly trying to compare Gore and GW on command of English and intelligence?
tha't amazing.
President Bush not only graduated from Yale, but gained a masters from Harvard Business School, while Mr. Gore flunked out of divinity school and dropped out of law school.
uh...you left out that Al graduated from Harvard with honors and a degree in government. After that he went to Nam for six months, unlike Bush (who pulled strings to get into the Guard and then never bothered to even show up for much of it). After that he actually had a real job. And he didn't flunk out of divinity school, he dropped out.
I'm no fan of Gore's (Al too is a pretty good example of affirmative action, but nowhere in the same league as Bush in that regard), but to think that GW is more intelligent than...hell...just about anyone is to live in denial.
In his sophomore year at Harvard, Gore's grades were lower than any semester recorded on Bush's transcript from Yale. He received his fair share of C-'s and D's while at Harvard as well. While at Vanderbilt Divinity School, Gore recieved F's in five of the eight classes he took over the course of three semesters.
As for his being a reporter in Nam for 6 months, I am sure that there were no strings pulled there. Not like he had bodyguards with him...OOPS, he did have bodyguards and never saw combat.
Al Gore on gun safety.
sure there were.
but he did actually show up
where was Bush when he was supposed to be doing Guard duty?
so...what were Bush's grades on that transcript?
where was Bush when he was supposed to be doing Guard duty?
Doing guard duty or else his ass would have been in the brig.
so...what were Bush's grades on that transcript?
SAT Verbal Score 566 (of 800)
SAT Math Score 640 (of 800)
Bush's lowest marks were a 70 (of 100) in Sociology
gee...you might want to go collect your $2000...
SAT Verbal Score 566 (of 800)
SAT Math Score 640 (of 800)
Bush's lowest marks were a 70 (of 100) in Sociology
these are grades?
his ass should be in the brig then....
One-year gap in Bush's National Guard duty
Records of Bush's Ala. Military Duty Can't Be Found
Vets want proof of Bush service
failure to accomplish annual medical examination...could it be he couldn't pass the drug test?
"I am angry that so many of the sons of the powerful and well-placed... managed to wangle slots in Reserve and National Guard units...Of the many tragedies of Vietnam, this raw class discrimination strikes me as the most damaging to the ideal that all Americans are created equal and owe equal allegiance to their country." (Colin Powell’s autobiography, My American Journey, p. 148)
maybe he should talk to his boss about this
gee...you might want to go collect your $2000
I was not in the Texas Air National Guard as the advertisement requires.
these are grades?
The Readers Digest version.
failure to accomplish annual medical examination...
Hmmm... this from "coldfeet". Where have I heard that name before?
Yep, the armed forces put up with wild drug use and missing guard duty all the time, especially during war time.
not "coldfeet"...National Guard Bureau...the name on the document is Major General Greenlief.
apparently, if your name was Bush, that's exactly what they did.
and yet you somehow know he was there doing guard duty? and yet no one there recalls ever seeing him there?